Prof. Jones Summarizes His Vancouver Keynote Address

I missed Prof. Jones' 6/23 keynote address at the Vancouver 9/11 Conference, however, I caught up with him on Sunday, and he was kind enough to summarize the key points of his lecture for visitors of who couldn't be in Vancouver.

Jones' lecture will be available in the coming weeks on DVD from and

Dr. Jones's address was absolutely amazing.

He got a long standing ovation... I think the defining moment for me was driving him, his wife, Matt from We the People Radio Network and his girlfriend Casey to the hotel sunday night, we all got settled in the car and I turned it over, blasting all four of them with loud rock music. A funny moment, but I guess you'd have to be there. Both Dr. and Mrs. Jones are better in person than can be conveyed through video.

Or maybe it was the Webster Tarpley booze cruise. (Just grabbing a bottle of wine) :-) I haven't really decided yet.

Here are some other conference rough cuts:

2nd video.

Webster Tarpley, excellent, must see vid. Thanks, Daricus.

Great work!

Thank you all for your efforts!
The truth will set us free!

Still better ?

"Both Dr. and Mrs. Jones are better in person than can be conveyed through video."

I think he's pretty amazing on video alone, great guy !

I'll give you one example.

There was a slightly handicapped student that asked a question of Dr. Jones, wether or not anything was worth researching in school while we were all living under this great lie. After all was said and done at the conference, Dr. Jones was very tired. I was about to drive the Jones' back to the hotel when he saw the kid and went up and talked to him for a minute or two, reassuring him that everything was going to be ok.

It was one of the most touching things I have ever seen. So yes, he is better in person, the man has integrity.

good job rep, thanks!

good job rep, thanks!

The dust evidence

would appear to be easier to prove a chain of custody from 9/11.

Has Jones established a chain of custody for the metal samples he tested earlier?

Could the particles already have been there before 9/11?

Some debunkers I debated the dust issue with recently claimed that all these spherical particles probably could already have been in the towers before they collapsed, e.g. from welding, and therefore didn't prove anything about high temperatures at the time of collapse. I would like to see Dr. Jones or some other experts address this issue, because it's rather hard to argue against with no proof that the particles originate from the time of the collapse/destruction.

That's a good question...

but I believe Dr. Jones already identified the makeup of the spheres and they have an almost identical "fingerprint" to that of thermate (iron, sulfer, potassium-somethingorother.....). I can't remember everything he said but it was in one of the video clips of a semi-recent lecture. And it was more than having the right kind of stuff in them, it was that they had the correct levels of each.

Also, I have a few youtube videos up under a different name that have evidence of explosions (you've probably seen the same clips before elsewhere). The debunkers claim that they were probably natural gas lines exploding. We've all heard speculation that it was a class A building and probably didn't have NG, but there is proof on one of the government's own websites that there was absolutely no NG in the 2 towers. Forgive me if this is well known already, but I found it in the govt report on the 1993 bombing investigation.

"Natural gas is supplied to the complex but is in limited use, mainly in the Vista Hotel’s kitchens but
also in restaurants located on the concourse of 5 WTC and the coffee tasting room at the New York
Commodities Exchange in 4 WTC. No natural gas is used in the two towers."

The report is here: --and the excerpt above is on p. 98

U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series
The World Trade
Center Bombing:
Report and Analysis
New York City, New York
USFA-TR-076/February 1993


Yes, William Rodriguez also confirms that the WTC towers were "Class A" buildings.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

First responder has "metal nodule in lung"

I was just reading an article on prison planet about a first responder who had his house raided by a swat team. Apparently he has whats described as a " 5mm metal nodule" in one of his lungs,
one of Prof Jones's spheres perhaps. You can read the article at the link below.

"Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past"
George Orwell 1984

All welding in the towers

All welding in the towers for the structural steel was required to conform to E7018 welding standards (NCSTAR1-1C, P31).

Among other things, what this means is that the welding rods must conform to E7018 materials. E7018 welding rods contain next to no aluminum:

Many of the Fe-Al rich spheres were much greater than 10% aluminum by weight.

Furthermore, a mechanism which impregnates molten steel with this much aluminum is very hard to envision since the ambient dust only made up about 2.9+/.5 %-wt in the USGS dust samples (max of about 4%). That is, flying blobs of molten steel would not pick up that much aluminum flying through the air or landing on the ground. Also, you would expect these hypothetical flying blobs to pick up the abundant Ca (18%) and Si (14%) in huge percentages relative to Al (3%), but this is not the case.

Welding would produce almost purely iron spheres (with lots of oxygen and some carbon, but very few other impurities). Certainly, if there were a bunch of iron spheres in the dust, then the above debunking argument would apply. Iron which settles into nooks and crannies, or were buried in concrete, could have been liberated during the collapse nd then found in the dust.

However, it is the impurities that are the main issue here --- Large numbers of Fe spheres containg anomalously large amounts of Al precludes pre-collapse generation via welding.

One last thing: Oxylance shipped 79,000 10'6" lances to GZ to slice and dice the steel. These lances contain virtually NO aluminum ( has the msds data sheets). There are companies that make thermic lances ( and burning powder which MAY have been used (I have seen no proof, though) which might have contained aluminum and MIGHT have possible generated Fe-Al spheres after collapse during clean-up. However, there is no proof of this, and the transport of these hypothetically generated Fe-Al spheres from thermite-type cutting into the MacKinlay 4th story window is unlikely.

Lastly, OxyLance burning bars burn through pretty much everything: Al, Fe, masonry, etc.. So, a burning bar can burn through any aluminum present. Burning Fe in the burning bar mixed with the aluminum would probably produce a similar signature as thermate (high Al content), and other impurities which are available in the dust MIGHT be burned concurrently (potassium, calcium, sulfer, for instance) ---- via dust settled on the work piece, or inadvertently burning the ground with a burning bar, but the stoichiometry is a bit odd. There are definite pictures of iron cutters using the oxylances tto peirce the exterior columns WITH the aluminum cladding still in place. That is, the iron worker just jabbed the burning bar straight through the aluminum cladding to cut the underlying steel. So, some Fe-Al spheres should be present at GZ based upon this fact.

Summary: No way are these spheres from welding. It is likely that some Fe-Al spheres were generated via burning bars slicing aluminum during clean-up. It is unlikely that these should show up in a 4th story apartment in any kind of abundance in only 1 week after the collapse (MacKinlay apt), but a quantitative estimate would need to be done.

I think a great deal of this

I think a great deal of this dust came into the window of a nearby apartment on the day of 911. It would be hard to image that pre-existing dust flew off the ground and into her window.

Also this brings to mind how the crime scene was tampered with and evidence removed, which itself is a crime and should be prosecuted no matter what else comes from all this.


to find spheres in every dust sample when the plane struck and heated only a small portion of the buidling, isn't it ? It makes the thermate theorie even more plausible.

From teenie tiny spheres

to one truly massive historical sphere of influence..
On the 11th day, of every month.

Show "Inadaquacies in the Jones hypothesis" by Chander

You must be joking.

Why don't you go "dustificate" yourself. Or better yet, stick a fork in a microwave and watch what happens, hrm? Judy Wood is a joke without a punchline, and this is no game.

Show "Daricus - You are a nasty" by dogster

Molten Steel and the Archimedes Principle

What basis do you have to claim that there was not molten metal at ground zero? The fact that iron-rich spheres are "commonly seen" in official dust studies, and confirmed by Jones' own analysis shows that there without a doubt molten metal at ground zero in significant quantities. The fact that it was present in dust thrown over a football field away into an apartment, with traces of molten spheres shows that this process was widespread and involved with the destruction of the towers.

The fact that eyewitness saw molten metal, and that NIST denies that there was molten metal to this day--to the extent of calling it "irrelevant to the investigation" shows just how damaging this evidence is to the official story.

Anyone who still believes the work of Judy Wood simply hasn't read the criticisms of her research, or simply doesn't care that she won't answer the objections to her work. If her theory has any validity, why won't she answer the objections to her research? Why does she continue to promote arguments that violate simple and basic laws of physics.

For starters, it's IMPOSSIBLE to turn steel into dust and "float" it into the upper atmosphere according to Archimedes principle. So the whole notion that the towers went into the upper atmosphere is SCIENTIFICALLY ABSURD.

I guess that doesn't stop people like you from believing it.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I wonder if he's claiming all these people are lying?

They must have said all that in their elaborate conspiracy to pre-debunk Judy Wood, obviously. I almost hope she's paid disinfo, otherwise I just have to feel sorry for her and her little cadre of zealots.

Show "A few questions for Arabesque" by Chander

flap your arms really fast and see if you fly

A summary of the current arguments compiled which have not been addressed by DEW-proponents are as follows:
• Quantitative dust measurements by the USGS, EPA, and McGee prove that only 0.6% +/- 2% of the structural steel dissociated into dust. Archimedes principle quantitatively proves that less than 1% of the structural steel could be buoyed by air during collapse. EPA and UC-Davis aerosol studies quantitatively prove that only a tiny fraction of 1% was dissociated in the rubble during the days, weeks, and months following the collapses.
• Elemental iron could not be transformed into other elements due to the energy requirements: at least 37,000 100 mega-ton nuclear warheads worth of energy for fission to occur, and an average particle energy equivalent of 7000 times the temperature of the sun’s core to overcome the Coulomb energy for fusion to occur.
• The amount of power required to dissociate the steel in one WTC tower, not including any energy loss mechanisms, is well over 5 times the power output harnessed by human beings from the entire globe. Conservative estimates of energy losses swell the power requirements to at least 1000 times the earth’s power output. Obviously, no known power source is even remotely capable of accomplishing this feat.
• No aircraft or space based platform could reflect (or generate) such a beam since the opposing thrust would be equivalent to over 1100 (or 500) space shuttles at maximum burn, respectively. No known reflector could survive the intense energy flux.
• Sublevel collapses together with minimal surface debris easily account for all the debris from the WTC towers, WTC 4, WTC 3, and holes in WTC 6. The sublevel volume directly beneath the towers which was filled with debris accounts for more than 50% of the debris from the towers. The total amount of steel removed from ground zero as recorded by landfills and recycle centers (350,000 tons) and the total number of truckloads (over 100,000)and barges (over 1900) which transported over 1.6 million tons of material from GZ are consistent with the amount of debris expected.
• No known directed energy beam can possibly match the observed destruction of the WTC towers:
o Symmetry of collapse
o No expected optical effects were manifested from the astronomical intensity: air ablation, optical distortions from heated air, bright flashes from super-heated steel, etc.
o No known energy beam could simultaneously penetrate the thick dust during collapse, energetically heat steel sufficiently, and not massively scatter into the surrounding area.
o In the case of the North Tower, the antenna dropped first; indicating an internal structural failure
o Previously molten steel eutectic recovered from the WTC tower and WTC 7 rubble with a thermite-analog signature
o Eyewitness testimonies of explosions occurring before collapse initiation
o The presence of iron-aluminum rich spheres with chemical traces of thermite-analogs in dust samples as far away as the fourth floor of an apartment a football field away.
• The volumetric compression expected from collapsed steel-framed buildings matches the amount of debris observed in the holes in surrounding buildings as well as from partially collapsed surrounding buildings. Furthermore, the damage is consistent with the impulse forces generated from falling debris. The presence of jagged edges, rectangular holes, and right-angle corners in photographs directly contradict the claim that DEW-proponents argue are proof of DEW damage, circular holes. However, the entire methodology is hopelessly flawed as shown by other isometric photographic perspectives of building damage.
• Seismograph readings do not directly correlate to the potential energy of a building in any fundamental way for reasons which have previously been cogently explained.15 Applying the same erroneous scaling arguments used by DEW-proponents (scaling the potential energy and consequent hypothetical release of seismic energy in a linear fashion) to WTC 7 leads to the conclusion that less than 6% of the building hit the ground: the seismic energy readings were 87 times less and the potential energy was 5 times less that of the WTC towers, so 5/87 ~ 5.7%. If we then use the arguments from DEW proponents that 80% of the towers did not hit the ground, then only 1% of WTC 7 hit the ground and was present in the rubble pile!
• Non-catastrophic bathtub damage is a natural result of minimal surface waves generated during the collapse of the WTC towers as recorded by seismograph readings.
• Other phenomena which have been ascribed to DEWs which supposedly support the hypothesis such as burning vehicles, spontaneous disintegration of materials, intact paper, ‘dirt’, rust-colored smoke, and videos allegedly showing disappearing acts of steel, were either shown to be egregiously wrong or that much more plausible explanations exist.

Archimedes Principle:

In this section, I will show that it is physically impossible for the air to support any significant amount of the total weight of the towers during or immediately after collapse.

The concept of buoyancy dictates the amount of weight that air can support. This concept is expressed as Archimedes principle (scribed in 250BC). The only way that debris generated from the collapsing towers can travel upwards is if the “hot air + dust” weighs less than the surrounding cooler air. The maximum weight of dust that can be lifted is the difference in weight between the hot air generated and the surrounding air.

The density of air as a function of temperature is listed in the adjoining tabl (

The density of air changes by 0.26 kg/m3 when the air temperature increases from 20°C to 100°C, the boiling point of water. The air could not have become much hotter than 100°C since many people survived the dust/debris cloud without suffering heat strokes and burns. The maximum weight of dust that the air can lift during collapse is found by estimating the volume of the dust cloud during collapse and multiplying by the change in air density generated by the heat. The dust cloud volume during collapse was no greater than 10 times the volume of the tower (~1.7 x 106 m3). The maximum weight supportable by the warmer, less dense air is 10 x 1.7 x 106 m3 x 0.26 kg/m3 = 4700 tons. A tower weighed 240,000 tons,13 so the air could only support approximately 4700/240,000 ~ 2% of the weight of the building during collapse.
Even if we consider that the temperature rose to 100°C during the collapse (which is much higher than expected based upon the evidence provided by people who survived the dust cloud), the percentage of the towers which could be buoyed by air during collapse is only 2%. The structural steel accounted for less than half of the towers by weight above-grade. Since at least half of the dust was necessarily other pulverized material like concrete and wallboard, the result is that much less than 1% of the structural steel could have been buoyed by air during the collapse.

It is physically impossible that the towers shot up ‘into the upper atmosphere’ during collapse. More than 99% of the structural steel from the towers had to move downward based upon Archimedes principle.
Furthermore, photographic and video evidence does not support the claim that significant amounts of debris moved upwards during either collapses of the World Trade Center towers. An example of such a picture used to support the claim is shown in the interview of Dr. Judy Wood by Dr. Jenkins.

Like Arabesque stated, provably impossible means impossible. Not *everything* is possible. If you think so, flap your arms really fast and see if you fly. Make sure you video tape it and post it on google, I would very much like to see you try.

Show "Your contribution of a" by Chander

You lose.

Brownian motion keep the tiniest of particles in colloidal suspension, but it can not buoy those particles. That is, Archimedes principle shows you that the air can not lift but 1% of the structural steel UP. Brownian-motion suspended colloids will DIFFUSE outward in all directions slowly.

Even then, only so many tiny little particles can be maintained in a colloid in air. For a simple example, a bottle half full of talkom powder will not maintain a colloidal suspension since the air can not support that kind of density of colloid, no matter how much you shake it. What fraction, by weight, can the air support in the half empty bottle? It is much less than a few percent --- try it for yourself. In fact, you can combine the previous experiment and hold the bottle while you flap your arms.

So even if you consider colloids, the air can not buoy them based upon archimedes principle, and the mass of colloid the air can support is extremely small when comparing to the mass of the towers.

It is not physically possible. Another way you can tell that this is the case is by studying volcanic fall-out. Fine dust settles and is resuspended into the air just like at GZ. The transport mechanism is completely synonymous with low density flows, or pyroclastic surges. The Volcanic facies which settle from such flows are of a very fine variety, just lke on the streets surrounding GZ. The reason this ocurred is that it is not physically possible for the air to support a large density of colloid. It is not physicaly possible.

The weight of all the buildings was estimated (around 1.2 milliont tons), AND the weight of the debris which was removed was MEASURED to be 1.625 million tons of debris. One way they measured it is using.... you guessed it.... Archimedes priniciple when loading barges and judging how far down the barge sunk into the water:

Martin J. Bellew (Director of the Bureau of Waste Disposal), "Clearing the way for recovery at Ground Zero: The 9-11 role of the NYC Department of Sanitation", New York City Department of Sanitation;

GW Institute for Crisis, Disaster and Risk Management, "Role of USACE at the WTC Response Operations";


Sand and soil were transported to ground zero. For instance, sand and soil were used to stabilize the bathtub wall. Sublevel collapses near the bathtub wall occurred which caused engineers concern that the bathtub wall may cave inward due to the external pressure with no opposing internal buttressing. A large trough on the southern edge by the South tower, for example, was filled in with sand and soil.
Much of the so-called ‘dirt’ which Dr. Wood refers to on her website was assuredly the crushed and pulverized building contents. To illustrate this point, while even the staunchest DEW-demolition proponents do not believe that WTC 7 was destroyed in this manner, the WTC 7 debris pile shows the same so-called ‘dirt’ constituents located throughout the rubble pile.

Most of the contents from the WTC 7 building were most likely crushed from the gravitational potential energy of the building falling onto itself. Even in the case of a standard controlled demolition, most of the energy from demolition explosives is focused upon shearing the steel columns. Little of the explosive energy is used to pulverize building contents. The energy released from explosives in a conventional controlled demolition of a tall building is tiny compared to the gravitational potential energy. Much more explosive energy above that necessary to shear steel columns would be necessary to match the pulverization energy associated with the gravitational potential energy of the building. The contents of WTC 7 were pulverized mainly due to the gravitational potential energy released upon impact.

Photographs of the WTC 7 rubble pile depict constituents resembling ‘dirt’ throughout the pile. However, it is actually crushed wallboard, concrete, and office furnishings which were subsequently watered down by rain and fire hoses. It basically looks like dirt and mud.


Some dirt was hauled in. You think it was hundreds of thousands of tons worth? Why in the world would you think that? You have proof that a lot of dirt was hauled to GZ, then? Who did it? How long did it take them? Who paid them? Which trucking companies transported the large amounts of dirt?

All hot air, and no proof.

You lose. Can't violate Archimede's principle, colloidal suspension from Brownian motion won't save you, and no debris from GZ magically disappeared which is more than well established.

Got anymore fairy-tales you want to try out?

Show "There are numerous errors in your comments" by Chander

Wrong again

Buoy means to lift up: to float or rise by reason of lightness.

That is, to float as in Archimedes principle, like, say.... how a buoy floats.

The particles in colloidal suspension are not lifted up. They are not buoyed by the air. It is an entirely different mechanism.

It takes energy to lift the towers' weight 'up into the upper atmosphere'. This is calculable. Also, the mammoth density of particles could not be maintained in colloidal suspension since it is precluded by the small path-length between collisions. The dust-to-dust collisions rate would extremely high, and quite literally the resulting aggregation would cause the larger particles to precipitate faster from solution. This is the exact same mechanism that results in density flows, in both sedimentary and pyroclastic flows. For example, in a pyroclastic flow/surge, even the fine particles quickly settle since the air can not support a large density of colloid, and it is well known the finer particles are only maintained in colloid via turbulent air currents. Once the air currents cross into a laminar flow regime, the particles settle out of air. This can also be witnessed by the fine ash which settles over towns during volcanic eruptions where very fine particles settle from the sky.

The weight of the buildings can not be supported by thin air. Archimedes principle tells you that, even if the particles were in colloidal suspension. That is, the weight of those particles could not be lifted by slowly rising air even if the temperature difference was something like 80C or so. The air currents would not rise with that weight of dust in them even if they were in a colloid. The reason is that the energy required to do so is dictated exactly by archimedes principle. The buoyancy completely tells you how much the air could actually lift via rising hot air currents.

Furthermore, there certainly was no explosive air currents which shot up during or immediately after collapse. Photographic/video evidence does not support it : 1) South Tower collapse did not grossly disturb the smoke generated from the North tower ---- the smoke was not blow violently upward, but maintained it's mainly horizontal flow pattern 2) the angle the debris/smoke makes compared to the 10 MPH winds shows you that the air currents shooting up were much less than 10 MPH (less than 45 degrees with respect to the horizontal).

There is no missing debris. It was located in the sublevels. No significant amount of debris shot up, and it has been quantitatively proven. The steel did not turn to dust, and that has been quantitatively proven. The steel did not turn to aerosols, and that has been quantitatively proven. The amount of steel and debris hauled from GZ has been quantified and supports the conclusion that no significant amount of steel disappeared. Photographic evidence supports the claim that massive sublevel collapses occurred based upon 1) photographs as the debris is removed, one can see much of the sublevels filled with debris 2) Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers damage assessment maps of the sublevel damage.

You have nothing. No proof that steel was dissociated, or that ANY steel disappeared. All evidence is to the contrary.

Your job is to quantitatively show that the air can support the density of debris associated with the mass of the debris you think disappeared. Prove it. I will wait for your QUANTITATIVE response. Otherwise, you are talking out of your backside. Secondly, you need to show the energy required to literally lift the amount of debris you think is missing upwards at the rate you think it went up, and show that air currents have that much energy.

So, there is a difference between buoying the particles upward (lift) and a colloidal suspension. The only contradiction I can detect is the one in your own imagination.

You have the gall to maintain that you monopolize the 'inconvenient facts' while concurrently not stating one single fact which supports the notion that DEWs brought down the towers. I have stated many facts which are contrary to your assertion. Conflating misinterpretations as facts, and then stating that you know the 'facts' and then proceed to not name them, do nothing to support your assertions.

DEW-demolition faith-based believers are weak-minded individuals who choose to ignore the 'inconvenient facts' regarding 9-11 and simple physics. They pretend to have the 'brave heart' who are on a quest, and only they can truly 'see' (hallelujah!), when in fact they are blind to the immense stacks of contrary, provable, quantitative facts and established physical principles which completely discredit the entire notion. In short, they are Don Quixotes valiantly chasing windmills. Congratulations to you in proclaiming your own delusional heroism.

brain-dead Wood-ites

Do you really think the workers could have worked on a pile that had a surface temperature of 1100 degrees as the official in the video claims?

Who said anything about the temperature ON THE SURFACE being 1100C? AVIRIS fly-by heat maps show maximal surface temperatures of 750C, and these are located in small confined areas of the rubble.

Credible eyewitnesses report molten *steel* (Leslie Robertson, Mark Loiseaux, Firefighters, etc.) should not be casually dismissed since these gentlemen know the difference between steel and, say, Aluminum and Lead. Also, it is a chlidish interpretation, the cartoon picture you have in your head ,where molten steel existed over the entire pile, flowing over the entire surface.

The existence of isolated areas where steel did not flow is not proof of it's non-existence. All it takes is proof that molten steel existed to prove the claim.

1) Credible eyewitness accounts (
2) molten steel during the collapse (Fe-Al micron-sized spheres)
3) WPI study showing beams highly oxidized with intergranular melting and high sulfidation, implying temperatures in the rubble above 1000C for 'long periods of time'
4) RJ Lee Group reporting monolayer and thicker coatings of vaporized lead coating various material (increasing the lead hazard way above that reported by EPA since it is significantly more difficult to detect)
5) Flowing metal, most likely steel, from the South Tower before collapse
6) Dr. Cate Jenkins (EPA whistleblower) stating that temperatures in the rubble pile exceeded 1500C in her latest Journal of 911 studies article

There is no doubt that molten metal existed in large quantities (flowing like a foundry). There is no doubt that at least some molten steel existed. AVIRIS fly-by's show the likely localized areas.

Childish isolated pictures of puddles do not disprove that the rubble pile was hot in other areas.

People's boots can easily melt without baking a turkey shoved inside of them. This is a ridiculous idea. Take a pair of old boots, place your turkey inside of them, and take a torch to the bottom side of the thick rubber heal. Since rubber is a good insulator and you are supplying much heat in a localized area, the rubber will melt in that spot and not bake your turkey. This is another childish notion promoted by the brain-dead Wood-ites.

Show "Your criticisms do not add up" by Chander

Many tons of water were

Many tons of water were poured on the debris. Have you any idea what happens when water and molten metal come together?

Yeah.... REAL big mystery


[[Even as the steel cooled, there was concern that the girders had become so hot that they could crumble when lifted by overhead cranes. As a result, additional safeguards were put in place to limit the dangers associated with lifting the damaged steel and to protect the workers in the vicinity.

Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special expertise was needed. OSHA called in Mohammad Ayub and Scott Jin, structural engineers from its national office, to assess the situation. They recommended a special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments to reduce the hazards.]]

Firefighters spray fires all the time which are 2000F with water. I have not seen one city block explode due to a steam explosion. Yeah, they are *real* dangerous ---- the entire GZ was lucky to survive spraying water on hot metal.... Also, people quench white hot steel all the time. Lots of steem, so what?

BTW, even OSHA knows something about this effect, and explicitly states it in their publications! Do you honestly thing the firemen would not know about it, and just ignorantly spray a hot place in the pile with a bunch of construction guys standing around waiting for a steam burn?

And how do you know there was no steam? I see an awful lot of white vapor, and it looks an awful lot like steam to me. In fact, the plume aerosol measuremetns performed by EPA, OSHA, and UCDAVIS show that a miniscule amount of the building by weight was in the plume during the weeks and months following 9/11.

Let me resummarize the pertinent points:
The debris did not go up since no photographic evidence exists showing quantitatively that a significant amount of the building went up --- and stupidly pointing to photographs with no analysis is the same thing as pointing to a cloud in the sky. Archimedes principle states that less than 1% of the building by weight could be buoyed by the thin-air during and immediately after collapse (big suprise to most readers, I'm sure --- the thin-air can not support the weight of the towers). ALL dust sample studies, literally every single one of them, quantitatively show no structural steel was dissociated into Fe (much less than 1%). ALL quantitative aerosol studies, literally every single one of them, show that much less than a tiny fraction of 1% of the steel was located in the plume during the days, weeks, and months after 9-11.

The steel did not go up, did not turn to dust, and did not spontaneously vaporize in the plume.

Where, oh where, could all the steel have gone? Yeah.... REAL big mystery. Do you think that the measured 1.625 million tons of debris removal may, just perhaps, tell you where it went?

Show "You quote OSHA as your authority" by Chander

tragically comic giants and windmills

All fires above the boiling point of water will create steam. Why, exactly, do you think spraying water on a 1000C fire which is done daily by firefighters worldwide is so different, and thus irrelevant, than spraying some water on molten metal at 1500C? Both temperatures are MUCH hotter than the boiling point of water, 100C.

BTW, OSHA above is illustrating the dangers associated with steam explosions which will occur as the beams are lifted up and are suspended on the end of a cable or maybe precariously balanced in the grip of a back-hoe claw. The rapid ejection of H2O gas from the surface of a very hot steel beam, like that which would occur if water was sprayed on it by a fire-hose while the steel beam were hoisted in the air, will cause the steam to move one direction while the steal beam is literally propelled in the opposite direction. This is exactly how a rocket is propelled --- gas is ejected in one direction and the rocket-ship is propelled in the opposite direction. This is not much of a problem if the massive beam is laying on the ground or is buried in a debris pile, but can become a problem for multiple reasons if it is suspended by a crane. Do you see the difference, and why steam explosions might be a danger in this circumstance? Do you see why it is not much of a problem if the beam is laying stably on the ground or in a debris pile?

Steam is not 'invisible'. That is ridiculous. Watch the following video posted by Daricus starting at 55 seconds to see steam rising from the debris pile --- it is unmistakably steam.

Not all the white smoke emanating from the pile is steam, but a lot of it is unmistakably steam generated by the interaction of water and the hot debris. This is "but one of a number of errors" you have made.

To our tragically comic hero who valiantly fights the many "hulking giants" ---- Rest assured, I will keep proving to you the giants are, in actual fact, windmills....

"Steam is not invisible"

Maybe you should have done a little homework and thus avoided making an ass of yourself.

The Encyclopaedia Brittanica defines steam as an, "odorless invisible gas consisting of vaporized water."

Sure it is....

I can't believe I have to explain this.

The density of the steam and the water particle size which aggregates will dictate the opaqueness of steam. Clouds are water vapor, and so is fog.

Dense steam is white, and is clearly visible in the video posted by Daricus.

I suggest you use your trusted Encyclopaedia Brittanica book set and look up a recent technological development called a STEAM ENGINE, and see if there are any pictures showing the white STEAM cloud coming from it. You may know it better as a 'chu-chu train'. Here is a picture of one:
See the white smoke? Know what it is?

You might also catch a glimpse of white STEAM coming out of a nuclear reactor tower --- it would be the dense white cloud emanating from the top.

You could also look up volcanoes and see if there are any pictures of lava entering the ocean which produces large tephra steam jets. It would be the WHITE SMOKE emanating from the ocean as it is converted into dense steam.

You ever see steam tunnels venting in NY, or maybe on a college campus? Steam is used to heat older buildings. You might be able to recognize it by the WHITE SMOKE emanating from venting grates or man-hole covers.

Who was in charge of the cleanup?

Seems like it would be worth knowing.

No proof, all 'POOF'

If Dr. Jones can demonstrate that these particles could have only been produced by high temperature then he will truly have achieved something. As it is, the sheer volume of micron- sized particles is better explained by Dr Judy Wood's hypothesis of exotic devices causing molecular dissociation

Uh-huh, "the sheer volume of micron sized particles"..... and what, quantitatively speaking, would this volume be which proves Dr. Wood's theory correct? Where, exactly, is the quantitative breaking point between DEWs and other causes, and what kind of generated particles prove DEWs caused them and not other things which are in the land of reality?

Before you answer, you should do a little homework first. Name one, only one, DEW which would do ANYTHING other than heat steel. And then, after considering this little tidbit of information, state why HEAT effects prove DEW caused any damage at ground zero when there are many sources of heat.

None of Woods interpretation of evidence proves anything. You have nothing. No proof, all 'POOF' (to use Dr. Wood's 3rd grade vernacular)

What do you make of this?

Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and part of the ASCE/FEMA assessment team, about WTC7:

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

What does it take to evaporate steel?

The long answer....

Hello Ningen. It is a good point. Officially, WPI group does not say the steel evaporated though I do not doubt your sourced quote. officially, I believe they say that the beam was eroded via massive corrosion. The temperature of the beam they analyzed could not have physically been at the steel vaporization temperature (basically the same as iron since steel is 98% iron, ~2800C.) ---- various signatures would have been present in the steel's physical structure if this had occurred. Their research directly contradict the quote, so I would think he mis-spoke. I only state this not to be an apologist or pretend to know his intent, but the research they report flatly contradict his statement. They find evidence of a eutectic (FeO and FeS) which, in the right ratio, becomes a liquid at a minimum of 940C, and the measured ratio precludes temperatures in excess of around 1000-1100C (as reported).

I originally saw Barnett's work appear as a supplemental report in Appendix C of the FEMA report. Since that time, I have seen a slightly more in-depth report put out by WPI (something like Worcester Polytech Institute if memory serves), and a very in-depth power point slide presentation (no audio, just slides) on the work which covers quite a lot of material which is useful.

The upshot is that they see high 'sulfidation' and 'oxidation' of steel beams which were pulled from the rubble pile underneath WTC 7 and a WTC tower. An appreciable amount of the metal on these pieces were gone. In the original FEMA report supplement, they state the beam was exposed to high temperatures for 'prolonged periods of time'. Intergranular melting place the 'annealing' temperature at around 1000C. The story they outline is basically that the eutectic formation caused by the presence of sulfer and the high temperatures drastically increased the iron->iron oxide reaction (Fe2O3) aka rust. Rust breaks apart steel since the conversion from Fe crystal structure to Fe2O3 causes dislocations in the local crystal structure (Fe2O3 grains do not fit well within the Fe crystal structure) and basically split it apart. This is why you get 'flaking' when your car rusts --- at least the old ones which used to be made of steel ;)

Before anyone becomes confused, let me state that a few isolated beams showing massive rusting should not be conflated with evidence of massive amounts of steel turning to dust. These steel beams were definitively exposed to exceedingly high temperatures for long periods of time, and is recorded in the phases of the material. This is NOT evidence of a magic dissociation machine, and much evidence shows that this phenomena did not happen on a massive scale. Furthermore, all the hard evidence shows that the erosion was caused by high temperatures >940C & <1100C from the infusion/diffusion of sulfur into the steel. Also note that all evidence of the dust and aerosols show no significantly elevated levels of iron. Recall, for instance, that the NIST tests on the steel beams based upon the metallurgical tests looking at the phase of the material show temperatures did not reach 600C, and paint-peel tests only showed isolated patches on 3 steel beams which showed temperatures in excess of 250C (even though these beams were SELECTED due to their vicinity to impact and subsequent fire). All the evidence appears consistent with small, localized, extremely hot spots within the rubble piles.

OK, back to Barnett. I had not seen the specific quote you have stated. WPI group was tasked by FEMA to do the following:
1)Can we determine the maximum temperature that this A36 steel beam [from WTC7] encountered?
2) What caused the observed severe erosion of the steel?

The WTC7 steel was A36 carbon steel. "carbon spherodization" grains were observed which definitely show the steel was heated to at least 700C. The characteristic of the witnessed carbon diffusion from ferrite to austenite phases place the steel temperature at almost 1000C. The Eutectic mixture of FeO and FeS forms at a minimum temperature of 940C when the stoichiometric mixture is precisely ~FeO/FeS (%-mol wt) ~ 55%, and the eutectic only forms at higher temperatures if the mixture is not precise (too much or too little S or O present). The eutectic mixture is MELTED at this temperature, not evaporated. They summarize these points:
1) Rapid deterioration of the A36 steel was a result of hot corrosion.
2) Heating in an environment containing oxygen and sulfur resulted in intergranular melting which transformed to an Iron Oxide and Iron Sulfide eutectic mixture on cooling .
3) The reaction that results in the formation of this eutectic lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel to about 940C or lower depending on Silicon and Carbon effects at the reaction interfaces.

Note that the 940C is actually more of a minumum required temperature. It is much more likely that the actual temperature the steel endured was probably more like 1000C, but less than about 1100C based upon the eutectic phase diagram.

The WTC tower steel was HSLA (high strength) carbon steel. Their summary is a bit different for the HSLA erosion and less detailed:
1) The severe thinning of the HSLA steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
2) Sulfidation of the grain boundaries in the HSLA steel accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.
3) The high concentration of sulfides in the grain boundaries in the corroded regions of the steel occurs due to copper diffusing from the HSLA steel combining with iron, manganese and sulfur making both discrete and continuous sulfides in the steel grain boundaries.

They explicitly state that they have no idea where the sulfur could have come from (although I have heard that sea water may be a good source, and a large amount of sulfer was measured in the dust although that was at least mostly bound up into SO4 analytes), or if these processes occurred in the rubble pile or before collapse. I should say that the likelyhood of 1000C anneal temperatures for steel in a diffuse flame fire in a massive interconnected steel frame structure (which includes the heat transport mechanisms wicking the heat away from the fire) is extremely unlikely. Also, the fuel load in an office fire does not burn in one local area for very long. For instance, even in the exaggerated NIST fire models, the hottest air temperatures were about 1000C, but the fuel load would be spent in that locale in about 15 minutes, and the fire would move on. Steel temperatures did not exceed 600C for any WTC tower steel in the NIST fire model.

That means that almost assuredly the temperatures occurred in the rubble pile. The eutectic mixture, BTW, was found in both samples so even NIST states the steel did not become hot enough in their model --- not even close --- to form the liquid eutectic.

The question then becomes by what mechanism did these pieces suffer these extreme temperatures if fires can not explain them? Well..... CD involving incendiaries might have heated the steel during collapse and then became well insulated. Possibly exothermic reactions occurring in the rubble pile caused heating in the rubble. In both cases, the conclusion is pretty much the same: energetic exothermic chemical reactions. There are some benign explanations floating around, but none I have read seem very convincing. The final conclusion I have drawn is that I have no clue what caused this, and do not take it for proof of CD, although a true investigation would have sought to understand this phenomena since the severe anomaly almost assuredly caused by exothermic reactions may have contributed to the demise of multiple buildings.

I had heard that the funding was not available to continue the metallurgical research to fully answer some of the fundamental questions tasked by FEMA. This fact is VERY disappointing...

hahaha, Judy Wood is

hahaha, Judy Wood is HILARIOUS. she should take that act on the road or something......

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

Maybe we should

ask him to make his PowerPoint presentation available in I know some people like to go through the files quickly instead of watching the whole video of presentation.

I'm not a chemist, but there seems to be high readings

of chlorine based material in the rubble pile. For example, consider the Report on Air Sampling Near the World Trade Center Site: New York State Department of Health, October 30 & 31, 2001. It shows that air sampling of the smoke plume on the rubble pile over one month after 9/11 measured 33.9 mg/m3 of HCl as well as 2.24 mg/m3 of HNO2 and 12.28 mg/m3 of HNO3. The presence of these acid gases in the air above the WTC rubble pile at this time is consistent with the emission of Cl2, HCl, N2O, NO, and H2O from the slow decomposition of what chemical signature was in the rubble.
Prof. T. A. Cahill at U.C. Davis has also published data on aerosol samples collected at or near Ground Zero in October 2001. (See Aerosol Science and Technology 38, 165, (2004)) Among the data reported by Cahill is a mass spectrum of 5 – 2.5 micron particulate collected from within the smoke plume on Varick Street. In agreement with the results noted above, the mass spectrum’s three strongest peaks reveal the presence of Cl, NO2 and NO3. However, Cahill suggests that the detection of chlorine may be explained by “ the relatively large chlorine inventory in the WTC buildings from plastics, including the PVC, and chlorine-bleached paper.” I thought I should review data on chlorinated species at the WTC in relation to studies of the behavior of chlorine-containing materials such as PVC in building and other related fires.

Analytical data reported by the US EPA derived from air monitoring at, or near, Ground Zero in the period September 2001 to May 2002 show that many chlorinated organic species were present at significant levels up to December 2001. These included aliphatic species such as chloroform, chloroethane and di-chloroethane as well as the aromatic compounds chlorobenzene and di-chlorobenzene. The chlorinated compounds detected may be arranged into two groups: chlorinated species produced by the thermal degradation of PVC and chlorinated species that are not derived from PVC decomposition. The PVC-derived designation was arrived at from published data on the thermal decomposition of PVC, (See for example: Journal of Polymer Science 12, 737, (1974)). Apart from HCl, which is indeed a major product of the thermal degradation of PVC, the major decomposition products from heating PVC in the temperature range 300 – 500 °C are: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, chlorobenzene, di-chlorobenzene and tri-chlorobenzene. All these species were observed in the air at Ground Zero.

But the most interesting feature of the EPA data is the fact that the non-PVC-derived chlorinated species are more abundant than the PVC-derived species. This demonstrates the presence of another major source of chlorine, above and beyond the PVC previously mentioned by Prof. Cahill as the most likely source of the elevated levels of chlorine in air samples collected at Ground Zero up to December 2001.

The USGS XRF spectra of WTC dust particles include over a dozen spectra labeled as CONCRETE. Most of these spectra show peaks for chlorine, (K-alpha at 2.62 keV), and sulfur, (K-alpha at 2.31 keV). The height of these peaks relative to the height of the calcium peaks allows one to estimate the chlorine and sulfur content of the concrete particles being analyzed and shows that the concrete particles in the USGS samples contained up to 3 % chlorine!

The NIST Report NCSTAR 1-5 provides data for plastic materials in a typical WTC workstation. These data indicate that there was about 1.5 tons of PVC-derived chlorine per floor. This estimate actually ignores the contribution from PVC-derived chlorine in the vinyl asbestos tiles used in the WTC flooring. This amounted to about 0.3 tons of chlorine per floor. If all of the available chlorine combined with the 600 tons of concrete per floor there would be a maximum concentration of 1.8/600 x 100 % or 0.3 % chlorine in the concrete. That means the measured chlorine was ten times higher that it should have been based on known sources of chlorine in the WTC concrete dust.

As you may or may not know, chlorine is very corrosive and causes the sulfidation of steel and iron, especially in a fire as intense as WTC's 1 & 2. The rubble piles' chemical signature shows the presence of high amounts of chlorine.

The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.

Good post

[Bad link]

This is not milligrams/m^3 (mg/m3), rather micrograms/m^3 (ug/m3). Anyway, lets figure out a ballpark on how much this amount of HCl is represented:

To find the amount of HCl emitted from the rubble, we need to estimate the plume size as it passes by the detector. We know that smoke and debris emanated from an area no larger than 10 times the footprint of a WTC tower, or 4 x 10^4 m2. The plume traveled with a lateral wind speed velocity no greater than 10 mph (wind velocity charts available from EPA), and rose vertically with a velocity no greater than about 10 mph. The volume per second passing the sampling stations is then (4 x 10^4 m2) x Sqrt(2) x 4.5 m/sec ~ 2 x 10^10 m3/day. Combining this exaggerated plume volume with the maximum measured density HCl as measured gives an upper bound on the total amount of HCl emitted per day from the rubble:

33.9 ug/m3 x (2 x 1010 m3/day) ~ 700 kg/day

This is not a crazy amount. Only roughly ¾ tons per day, or equivalently (based upon your reported NIST NCSTAR1-5 values), about ½ a floor worth of Cl per day.


I don't think you can really estimate XRF data like that. It is more tricky. It will involve the area under the Lorentzian peaks (the lifetime of the excited state effects the width) as well as the efficacy (quantum efficiency) of absorption, relative number of atoms aka %-abundance, and the effective cross sectional area associated with the electron orbital in question. You would have to convert the raw spectra to %-wt, at least. I have no idea how these things would combine or how far your estimate may be off since I have never performed an XRF measurement. However, usually for similar type spectra, you do multiple curve fits of many Lorentzians over the entire spectra and the parameters for the different elements are plugged in. Most modern machines basically automate the process.

However, with all that said, MacGee et al report about 2%-wt chlorine in the 7 dust samples he collected [John K. McGee et al, “Chemical Analysis of World Trade Center Fine Particulate Matter for Use in Toxicologic Assessment”, Environmental Health Perspective (June 2003)], so your estimate may be quite good.


This is an interesting point. If we use the MacGee values, then roughly 2% Cl is found in the dust by weight. It is hard to imagine this much chlorine being released *during* the collapse:

If roughly 1/5 the concrete (an educated guess; I know that most of the debris including concrete fell on the footprint so that only leaves about 50% to land outside the footprint and only some large fraction --- call it 80% --- would be concrete, and Jones found in the MacKinlay sample that over 50% of the weight of the sample was actually CHUNKS of concrete compared to dust, so 50% x 80% x 50% ~ 1/5) was pulverized and dispersed, then 2% x 1/5 87,000 tons concrete/tower (number from G. Urich’s publication at for the amount of concrete above grade) ~ 800 tons Cl per tower, or 3 tons Cl per floor. This is in the ballpark of 1.8 tons of Cl per floor, but there is no way that all the chlorine was dispersed *during* the collapse.

I think I agree with you on your main point for the moment. There seems to be a chlorine excess. Strange. I need to double check the NIST numbers you have quoted and think about other chlorine sources to convince myself fully, though. The last little estimate is VERY crude --- good enough for a blog, but I wouldn't publish it. It is only good for the ballpark, probably good to within a factor of 5, but no way would I say it is better than that.

My sincere thank you for pointing out the puzzle.


Another good point…


Thank you for sharing these videos. Great to see Ian Woods, Prof. Jones, Peter Dale Scott and others.

I've just found Judy Wood's top-secret "DEW" weapon;

^ Tastes good!

Show " Dem Bruce tries standup." by Chander

Yep, makes you wonder

Idiots can not recognize intelligence, so I do not find your comment surprising in the least.

I will simply explain the reason people are tired of hearing about the DEW-demolition notions: they have been completely and utterly disproved. Unequivocally, irreparably, and quantitatively proven to be a concocted fairy-tale.

This should not be mistaken as an 'effort to discredit the work of Prof. Wood'. Her work has already been discredited. Characterizing it as an 'effort' is a myopic view of the massive amounts of counter arguments which completely devastate her work which she refuses to address or redress. These facts have a very strong bearing on her character and credibility.

You suffer from a delusion in which you believe that 'flocks of sheep' are 'armies' and, therefore, people who are not defending themselves must be 'frightened'. You faithfully believe unsubstantiated fairy-tales without proof. Worse, the fairy-tale has been disproved in many different ways based upon hard evidence and sound physical principles. Amazingly, it 'makes ya wonder' why others are not as gullible as you.

"...unequivocally, irreparably, and quantitatively..."

It would be nice if you would use your head, and not simply your thesaurus, if you want to make a point. As it is, your post lacks even one substantive factual argument, simply a lot of verbiage.

If Prof. Wood's critical questioning is so nutty, I wonder why so many of you orthodox sheep spend so much energy trying to think up clever new insults, but seem unable to engage in scholarly ( or atleast civil) debate.

That OLD argument...

Dr Wood has critics.... so she MUST be credible! Brilliant! The reason that Woods has critics can't possibly be because people find her 'theory' bogus, or that suckers like you continuously spam threads with nonsense backed by nothing. Noooooooooo, it must be because she is on to something!

Give me break. Just remember, G. W. Bush has many ciritics, and it does not make him one bit more credible.

I have already summarized some bullet points, some of which included solid proof that steel was not dissociated and supported by thin air. The post is quantitatively backed up, just pick a point and I will show you the details which devastate the DEW notion. It is all quantitative arguments, not just stupidly pointing at pictures pretending the arguments should be self-evident.

News Flash: If an argument is so obvious as to be self-evident, then quantify it. Stop blowing THICK WHITE STEAM out of your backside. If it is self-evident, then it should be easy to do.

For instance, quantify how much of the building by weight is in the plume, or in the dust cloud which 'goes up into the upper atmosphere'. Or maybe state what kind of 'energy' was used to destroy the towers, perhaps? I mean, if it is obvious that all this damage is consistent with a directed ENERGY weapon, you should be able to tell everyone the type of energy, right? Otherwise, how can you possibly say that the damage is consistent with a directed ENERGY weapon if you have no idea what kind of energy?

Get it?

The reason that you have no quantitative analysis to back up your claims is because you have no proof. The reason that there are dozens of quantitative analyses and physical principles which disprove the claim is because the DEW nonsense is inherently false and all unambiguous evidence points in the same direction. None of the Wood-ites have proof, only misinterpretations of photographs.

"dirt" really is an apt name to her latest, greatest pastiche.

A primer on 'steam' and 'vapor'.

As I told you before, steam, as defined by the Encyclopaedia Brittanica is invisible. The white vapor you see is not steam, by definition. If you have never observed a boiling kettle, I suggest you do so. You will learn that the first inch or so, coming out of the spout of the teakettle, is invisible; after that it IS visible as white vapor. That invisible first inch or so is steam, the white vapor is just that, vapor. Steam becomes visible as vapor when it cools a little and the water molecules coalesce into droplets that are visible.

This is elementary stuff and is familiar to most people with a fourth-grade education. It is simply a matter of using the correct terminology. For some reason this does not seem important to you. Not only do you confuse steam and vapor, you also use mistakenly refer to steam as "WHITE SMOKE".

The whole reason for this discussion is to try to point out that some of the anomalies of the WTC rubble pile, in this case the various rising vapors, that Dr. Wood has pointed out, simply are not explained by the theory that thermite kept large amounts of steel in a molten state for weeks on end, despite the tons of water dumped on it.

It seems that certain parties are intent on convincing us that the WTC rubble vapor was caused by impossibly high heat, and equally intent on convincing us not to consider any other possibilities, such as molecular dissociation devices. The problem is that the evidence does not support the high temperature theory.

empty words backed by nothing.


First, a word about steam. The dictionary defines the common vernacular which is used in the English language. I agree that steam when in a pure single molecular state is invisible. However, almost everyone uses the term synonymously with the ensuing aggregated water vapor, and is stated as such in the dictionary:

steam /stim/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[steem] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
1. water in the form of an invisible gas or vapor.
2. water changed to this form by boiling, extensively used for the generation of mechanical power, for heating purposes, etc.
3. the mist formed when the gas or vapor from boiling water condenses in the air.
4. an exhalation of a vapor or mist.
5. Informal. power or energy.

So, the next time someone points to the rubble pile and shows you the steam rising from the pile, I think it is safe to assume they are talking about the hot aggregated water vapor which is defined in the commonly used vernacular. I think the context is a dead give-away ---- why would anyone say they see something invisible? Critical thinking skills seemed to have been skipped in your fourth grade class. So, in the original video posted by Daricus, do you not *see* the *steam* densely rising from the rubble pile at :55?

The rubble aerosols are not necessarily caused by high heat. However, there are particles which are only generated by extremely high heat:
1) vaporized lead as reported by RJ Lee Group coating various things (like rock wool) in monolayers and above (>1700C) causing much larger health risks than originally assessed by the EPA
2) molten steel as reported by very credible eyewitnesses
3) Fe-Al spheres in the dust, as well as Si rich spheres stuck to rock wool (>1000C for most glasses)
4) WPI study
5) EPA Dr. Cate Jenkins reporting the rubble pile hotter than 1500C
6) AVIRIS fly-by surface heat maps showing 750C hot spots
7) photographs of yellow hot steel beams which are in excess of 1100C
8) multiple videos and photographs of molten metal emanating from the South Tower corner, and due to the black-body radiation was in excess of 1400C at the burn (white hot) and in excess of 1100C falling many stories
9) Many eyewitness accounts of the smoldering hot debris pile which would flash into combustion when the debris was uncovered and exposed to atmosphere (oxygen)

No matter how you look at it, there is ample evidence that the debris pile in spots were well in excess of diffuse flame fires, especially oxygen starved fires buried in a dense rubble pile. The most plausible explanation is exothermic chemical reactions occurring in the pile. Planted explosives or thermite/ate I do not think well-describe the long duration, extremely hot temperatures within the debris piles by themselves.

a) However, there does not exist a molecular dissociation machine for steel. Also, how do you penetrate the dust cloud and dissociate steel? Remember, all low frequency E&M radiation is REFLECTED by steel (>99% at frequencies which can penetrate the dust). Where did the beam emanate from?

b) If steel was dissociated, why is it that no dust studies, not a single one, finds elevated levels of iron above that expected from the concrete aggregate (EPA, USGS, McGee)?

c) If steel was dissociated, why was no significant amount of iron found in the dust plumes from the aerosol studies (OSHA, EPA, and UC Davis)?

d) No pictorial evidence quantitatively supports the claim that any significant amount of debris 'shot up' during or immediately after collapse. In fact, the contrary may be proved based upon simple physical principles --- Archimedes principle tells you the maximum mass which may be buoyed by hotter air (which is a tiny fraction of the above grade steel in the tower). Any form of vertical air jets (from explosions or whatever) which hope to match observations (<<50MPH based upon how the pre-exisitng smoke clouds were basically undisturbed, and the angle the drifting dust clouds make with the known horizontal wind currents tells you the vertical velocity component) do not have the necessary energy to transport any significant amount of debris during collapse.

e) If steel was dissociated, why is all of it accounted for by landfills and recycle centers?

f) If steel was dissociated, why is it that photographs show massive amounts filling the sublevels as clean-up progressed and exposed the debris?

g) There is no machine. There is no proof that this imaginary machine exists. There is no signature you have identified which shows that one was used.

You have empty words backed by nothing. No proof. And a stack of contrary evidence --- the steel did NOT dissociate since there is no quantitative significantly elevated levels of iron found in the dust and aerosols, and physical principles tell you that no significant weight of the buildings shot up during or immediately after collapse which is supported by the photographic/video record.

Show "hsgsj concedes two points..." by Chander