Was Thermite used to Cleanup Ground Zero After the Collapses?
The following information is from Dr Judy Wood
(I did minor rewording)
Also see her new paper updated Oct 23
This site claims Dr Steven Jones turned this "search and rescue" photo (below) into his "thermite" photo (second photo below).
Quote: Mark Roberts AKA Gravy, of Loose Change Viewers Guide fame has written an excellent paper on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, discussed on an JREF thread here. One of the more interesting finds, was a picture that he found of firefighters searching for survivors in the rubble:
Photo From Jones paper: from PDF (last checked 10/23/06 7:30PM ET)
Quote from here: This picture, in a different form, has been used before, for a completely different purpose in Steven Jones "peer reviewed" paper
Notice the ambiguous Jones wording in his PDF: "Workers evidently peering into the hot "core" under the WTC rubble." Is this deliberate deception while avoiding responsibility for it?
[NOTE from CB_Brooklyn: It looks like Jones adjusted the levels to match the color of molten metal in a thermite reaction. Reminds me of how he used a NIST picture with its intensity levels adjusted, and hid the fact that it was adjusted.]
Also from Jones paper: from PDF (last checked 10/23/06 7:30PM ET)
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1858491.stm
This picture in Jones' paper sure looks like thermite being used for cleanup of GZ
- CB_Brooklyn's blog
- Login to post comments
i saw something on those
i saw something on those photos just the other day.. i think it might have been randforums.org.. if i come across it again ill forward it your way.
it might have been this one...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65656
..linked from here
Have you guys read this 133
Have you guys read this 133 page debunking of 9/11 CT claims?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65656
I've been following the 9/11 subject for a long time, and that particular document takes the wind out of the sails quite a bit.
There is a lot of selective use of photos, quotes, videos etc.
People who subscribe to the 9/11 CT theories really need to read that article...
You must be joking. You are full of "wind" yourself--hot air.
!
I'm actually reading
I'm actually reading this..... is there a way to cut and paste from these PDF files? This could be alot of fun.
I am loving the wording.... very un-biased... right!
this guy has already made at least ten references to things he has failed to research..... he has commented on the work of Alex Jones but it seems he's gotten all the info second hand..... he's an emotional nutcase
If we believe in the New
If we believe in the New World Order.... we are followwers of Alex Jones...and we are in a cult.
I can not believe this guy actually pulled it together to write 100+ pages
and the JREF bloggers are applauding this nonsense because it fits very well into their denial.... his arguments are poor and childish
Molten metal or search lights?
I attended a lecture a few weeks ago, where the 'official" photographer at ground zero, Joel Meyerowitz, showed similar images, expaining that search lights were used at night to look for casualties. These photos gave me the false hope that they were from the molten metal below the pile. It's easy to misinterpret what is happening in a still photo. He did mention that he had to buy six pairs of boots because of the +1000 degree heat from below the pile in the nine months he worked there.
This archive is for sale (±8000 8 x 10 images ). The Library of Congress did not have the funds to purchase the collection- so it's for sale (Jimmy Walters ?). Someone should get the archive and copies of the 8 x 10 negatives, that are harder to tamper with.
He did mention that he had
He did mention that he had to buy six pairs of boots because of the +1000 degree heat from below the pile in the nine months he worked there.
that might be useful to get on record.
nano-enhanced waders?
Wow. Are those magical boots that allow Jones to wade through the ponds of molten metal? Do you really think that the boots were made for wading through molten metal? So, how does this story of the boots support the fairytale of "ponds of molten metal"? ...Or are we now up to "oceans of molten metal"?
Hey, if you buy that story about the "rivers of molten metal," I have a bridge I'd like to sell you!
This one is almost a no-brainer.
Come on, are those rescue emergency workers giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to the "thermite"? If so, wouldn't the skin be peeling off their faces? And, that guy with the bare arms doesn't seem very affected by the heat. CONCLUSION: little to no heat.
So, who is it that's propagating these rumors saying there are not just "pools of molten metal," but "ponds of molten metal." Next week, it may be "lakes of molten metal." Stay tuned...
Isn't it amazing that with all of the "eyewitness testimony" of these "ponds of molten metal," no one has photographed them as of yet?
Give them another week and you might see a photoshopped version of it. ;-)
Jones had this in his PAPER. So one may wonder about his ability to interpret physical evidence. Jones really destroys his credibility with this statement:
"Workers evidently peering into the hot “core” under the WTC rubble."
Why would a physical scientist make such a blatantly erroneous statement? Next, will he say they scooped up the "molten metal" with their bare hands?
What is Steven Jones' agenda? To destroy the credibility of the truth movement with his bogus "science"?
So, what kind of "peer review" was this paper subjected to? I think Jones just destroyed the credibility of his bogus reviewers, as well.
So, let me get this
So, let me get this straight:
According to the nutbags who continue to somehow believe that 9/11 was an "inside job," the government blew up these buildings, and somehow got thousands of firemen and other rescue workers to use MORE incendiary devices while they tried to rescue people and clean up?
Is that your story?
Here's my challenge: do you have ONE PERSON who worked at Ground Zero in the days, weeks, and months after the terror attacks who can say that they saw "thermite" being used? Just one, please. And not some shill who claims he or she was there, only for us to find out that they are liars like some of the alleged "veterans" who posted ridiculous nonsense in support of the conspiracy whackos, only to be exposed when they couldn't get the details of their lies down right.
Is anyone willing to pick up this challenge? Or is your "movement" more bankrupt than it already is that all you have is pictures of lights and you "theorize" that they are incendiary devices. Because, that is not proof. That is called delusion.
Molten STEEL Testimonies
Hey DZ
Just found some very good bits on MOLTEN STEEL on the LC Forums (props to NK-44)
Firstly Some Clean-up Pics...
.
Below are a few excerpts from the LC topic...
- 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
- As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running
- Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel
- Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were
dripping from the molten steel
- New York Sanitation Department workers moving everything from molten steel beams to human remains
.
The full topic with sources can be found at : http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1324
.
.
.
Hmmmm..... Steven Jones' claims are obviously false
Jones claims the molten metal was iron from a thermite reaction, right? He even did scientific (LOL) experiments proving this, eh? He proved it, right?
Or perhaps he.. cough cough.... "changed" the data just like he "changed" the color in the picture (top of this blog) to FOOL PEOPLE!
What else should we expect from a government plant specifically put in place to discredit cold fusion??? (Check my post here for info on this!!)
Check it out
In Defense of Steven Jones: the Deliberate Effort to Discredit him and his Research
If you use thermite for clean-up, then you need to clean-up...
the molten metal it causes, don't you? Thermite seems to make the clean-up more complicated, doesn't it?
Also, would they really want molten metal dripping down onto bodies & evidence?
Oh, I forgot, they needed to rush the evidence away so they could rebuild immediately. Too bad it's still a hole in the ground 5+ years later.
they didn't rush it off,
they didn't rush it off, they were just cleaning the place up. it was evidence, yeah, but when the entire world watches the crime happen on television there's not much need for it.
the idea of using thermite for "clean-up" is absurd...why would they do that? how would that help them clean anything up?
Egad
"they didn't rush it off, they were just cleaning the place up. it was evidence, yeah, but when the entire world watches the crime happen on television there's not much need for it."
Statements like this give me a momentary flicker of sympathy with the TV Fakery people's motivations.
Are you being facetious?
Thanks for the sympathy :)
but when the entire world watches the crime happen on television there's not much need for it.
Ditto for the Ruby/Oswald event on TV:
"We all saw it on TV" somehow shortcircuited rational thought?!
Many people, to whom I introduce alien thoughts re: 9/11 2001 event ,say to me, "But I was there," as if that in itself is some kind of rational argument! (I would not, at the time, even be talking about the presense (or not) of striking aircraft - just introducing the ideas of demolition and perpetration) This: "But I was there" blocks all further reflection or thought. In cult busting lingo such a phrase is called a "thought stopper."
Not sure why it works that way - to have something right in the open. But I suspect the perps types understood the principle somehow....which is why they shot Kennedy right in the open, in front of hundreds of witnesses, and why Ruby shooting Oswald was on live TV. IMO. This is also known as "hiding something in plain view" which is a technique of flim-flam men for their conjuring/"magician" tricks. I still don't believe I understand the principle completely.
Once you get someone into a good rapport though, if you can, you can lead them, often, to reflection/thought. It's like a muscle they have that's there but never used. It's best to let it drop after they get a first glimmer and let it sit. If you push too much you'll get a "no" and that will set a a decision to further reinforce their habit of mind. IMO.
The ones who get angry IMO have their subconscious reasons for doing so. I, myself, got very angry when first told the fire wasn't hot enough to bring down the building as depicted. I think it was a mental revolt at the effort that would be required to re-think everything. A "natural" or instinctive resistance to change perhaps?
Remind me...how much did we see again?
Did we see the reasons for WTC7's collapse? Nope. Do you think just maybe the rubble pile had a few interesting things to tell us about the cause? Surely. So did they care enough to find, quarantine, forensically examine, and openly publish all of those evidences? Nope. What's wrong with this sequence of events? Everything.
If you are comfortable accepting the day two half truth based conjecture as if it were proven fact, go right ahead and do so. Just don't tell us we are unreasonable to want a full accounting of all the yet to be explained inconsistencies.
And the reason you are asking re using Thermite in the cleanup?
Just seems like an obfuscating question, and the OP certainly didn't qualify why the question should be addressed. Why would they use thermite in the cleanup when its destructive capacity would be redundant post-incident?!
The pictures mean absolutely nothing...why give this OP the time of day?!
Next...
Styve
Thermite to clean up Ground Zero.
First, thermite has never been used to bring down a skyscraper in controlled demolition. Check for yourself.
Second, see the picture below and decide if thermite was used to clean up Ground Zero.
What implications does this have for the work of Steven Jones?
What does it imply about those who will vote this post down?
thermite
So you're saying that thermite has never been used in a building demolition before, yet it WAS used to dismantle still- standing remains of the WTC? Wouldn't that be equally unprecedented? The ONLY reason I can think of for using thermite at Ground Zero is to have a cover story when thermite residue from the collapses was found, yet that residue HAS been found and still no mention of any thermite during the cleanup.
I've seen lots of pictures of the freestanding outer columns being cut with torches, so I would find it odd that they used thermite in this one case. Of course there's no proof that it is thermite, other than it looks very similar to the thermite that was already photographed at the WTC! (South Tower, pre collapse). How does that fit into your theory?
ps where is the image from? Is that the best resolution available?
thermite doesn't account for all the evidence
thermite doesn't account for all the evidence. A hypothesis is only valid if it takes into consideration all of the evidence.
who ever said
that thermite was a 'hypothesis'? It's an incendiary substance which has been verified to have been present at the World Trade Center on Sep. 11th. That's not a 'hypothesis', that's a fact. HOW exactly it was used to bring down the building would be a hypothesis, but that's not what Jones' research consists of.
Any theory of how thermite was used is of course backed up by the fact that thermite was used, a strength that the space laser theories are sadly lacking... Remember that 'accounting' for all the evidence is only part of the game, you also have to have evidence that directly supports your theory. So far all i've seen for the star wars hypothesis are some toasted cars, about the most absurd 'proof' of a space laser i could think of... and evidence that's more easily explained by thermite anyway.
Why does CB_Brooklyn continually post dubious no-plane...
at WTC disinfo, and now this "clean-up" with therminte trickery?
Lets not forget........
...... the Judy Wood "energy beam" theory, where she claimed to have proof the buildings were brought down by some sort of star wars death star energy beam. The proof? a grainy video that appeared to show part of teh facade of the building disintegrating. very quickly after a number of videos surfaced showing that very same facade collapsing - leaving dust behind - NOT disintegrating.
now - i ask you - is this science?
is constantly speculating on outlandish theories like mini-nukes, energy beams, tvFakery and Thermite bringing us any closer to winning the hearts and minds of the american public - and finding the criminals responsible for 9/11?
it is my opinion that these lines of research are cointelpro disinformation, designed to discredit, disrupt and confuse the movement. that's my opinion.
"Beam Weapons"? The Jury without Peer Is Still Deliberating...
John:
Your interview with Fox News on or about September 10th was very good (given the hostile circumstances & loaded questioning).
In your comment above, you say that Dr. Wood uses only one (1) grainy video to prove her case about beam weapons being used to disintegrate the WTC towers. If you have read her article, then you know that she uses approximately 150 pcitures & videos, seismic & other evidence from other demolitions, scientific evidence & analysis about other exotic energy sources, etc., to prove her case that some energy source (other than Thermite) was used to DISINTEGRATE most of the steel and most of the concrete in the WTC towers.
Although Thermite may have been used on 9/11, Thermite CANNOT disintegrate most of the steel & most of the concrete in the manner that we saw on 9/11. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite.
I am NOT convinced that Dr. Wood is correct in all that she asserts. However, she has definitely shown us pictures, videos & other evidence that I had not seen or considered. Maybe you have seen all these pictures, videos & evidence. I had not.
Her semi-complex scientific article asserting that "beam weapons" were used to disintegrate & bring down the WTC towers on 9/11 is 60+ pages long (but only 6 web pages). In its current, preliminary form, it is definitely NOT something to show to 9/11 newbies. I agree with you on this point.
However, if we in the 9/11 TRUTH Movement stand for anything, then we should stand for the rights of our 9/11 scientists to find & speak the TRUTH about 9/11 -- whatever it is, and wherever it is (even if we don't like it). After our 9/11 scientists find & test what they think is the truth about 9/11, they then need to prove it to their scientific peers (who are not well-represented here at 911 Blogger).
Expressing these scientic hypotheses in an understandable form is one of the areas in which we may be able to help Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Judy Wood and our other 9/11 scientists & researchers.
John, if you think that Dr. Wood has EVER talked about mini-nukes being responsible for bringing down the WTC towers (which she has NOT, as far as I know), then you may not understand what she is saying. But she may need to make herself clear.
In her preliminary article, there is much that is not clear. Before her scientific peers (or we) can say whether she is wrong or right, maybe we should let her finish her article.
Personally, given what I know about such weapons & given what I've seen of her article so far, I will give her the benefit of the doubt. After she finishes her article, I will go over it with a scientific fine-toothed comb & point out where she may be mistaken -- with as much scientific help as I can obtain. I'd suggest that others do the same.
John, if you think that Dr. Wood tries to prove her case about beam weapons with just one (1) grainy video, then you do NOT need to wait until she finishes her article to say that SHE IS WRONG. Thankfully, however, you did a much better job in telling 9/11 truth when you were on Fox News.
Let me know. Thank you. Best regards,
Thomas J Mattingly
I have reviewed her research
and find it unconvincing. in fact, i think it is designed to purposely be embarassing to the movement.
just look at the paper attached to this blog. she has photos of various Warner Brothers cartoon characters recovered from ground zero and she points out that "the Road Runner does not have a scratch on it"
Why is it that so much of the Reynold/Wood/Huapt research uses the imagery of cartoons? cartoon planes. Keebler elves. and now this?
It is my opinion that the Wood's research is rubbish. Garbage. Empty. And it is further my opinion that it is intentional.
The Road to Hell Is Sometimes Paved with Good Intentions?
John:
On numerous occasions (too many to count), you have expressed your opinion that the 9/11 science, materials testing, and research of Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds is "UNCONVINCING, EMBARRASSING, CARTOON-LIKE, RUBBISH, GARBAGE, [and/or] EMPTY." By now, most of us know your opinion about Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Wood. Although I SOMETIMES disagree with you on particular aspects of their work (i.e., some of their work is fairly good), I respect your opinion.
You also continue to express your opinion that Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds are INTENTIONALLY hurting the 9/11 Truth Movement. After reading their work and after meeting with Morgan & Judy when they recently spoke at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, I respectfully disagree with you about this. There is NO EVIDENCE (that I could find) that they are intentionally harming the 9/11 Truth Movement by their continued research, speaking & writing in search of 9/11 Truth.
John, what is your EVIDENCE and your PROOF that Dr. Reynolds & Dr. Wood are intentionally hurting the 9/11 Truth Movement?
I realize that "The road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions" and that they might be unintentionally hurting the 9/11 Truth Movement -- whether they know it or not. However, I have also seen no evidence of that. Although the mainstream media & others have attacked them for some of their research, my understanding is that the mainstream media have also attacked former Professor Steven E. Jones, Dr. James Fetzer, and even you for some of the things that they & you have said about 9/11. Imagine that!
Dr. Judy Wood's 9/11 research & writing was also very well received by a jury of her peers at a scientific conference (something that no other 9/11 scientist can say), and Dr. Wood also received a standing ovation (with no boos or catcalls) when she spoke before an audience of several hundred people from the 9/11 Truth Movement in New York City on the 5th Anniversity of 9/11.
What might be even more damaging to the 9/11 Truth Movement would be for us to succumb to some of the deliberate and intentional tactics & strategy of the 9/11 Cover-Up Perps and the 9/11 PsyOp Perps.
One page from the playbook of the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps is definitely "Divide and Conquer." The 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps have encouraged us to Bicker & Squabble amongst ourselves, to call each other names, and to question the motivations & sincerity of those researchers with whom we disagree.
John, I do not question your motivations, and I do not question your sincerity. However, I would also suggest that you consider the possibility that "The road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions." I am sure that you will probably agree.
Let me know. Thank you. Best regards,
Thomas J Mattingly
some Directed Energy Weapons in use