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:

Original picture: http://hereisnewyork.org//jpegs/photos/5575.jpg




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

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.

Show "it might have been this one..." by CB_Brooklyn
Show "Have you guys read this 133" by Roger Rabbit (not verified)

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.

Show "So, let me get this" by Anonymous (not verified)

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!!) 

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?


"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?!



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?


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...


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?


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

Show "some Directed Energy Weapons in use" by Jim Jones

John Albanese calls Thermite 'cointelpro'!

John Albanese said:

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.


stop the ad hominem crap. If

stop the ad hominem crap. If you believe tv-fakery to not be real, then PROVE IT. Get your a$s down to a local university and get an engineering professor to explain. And then post their answer. Until then, shut up with the ad hominems and stop breaking the rules of this forum.

Very unimpressive disinfo.

The 'proving of bullcrap' appears to be YOUR burden. And the ad hominems you directed at Steven Jones denounce you. And poor you, without empirical data (facts and figures and experimentation).

Neuvo mockingbird.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.

TV-Fakery is Already PROVEN By Physics and is understood

by those who understand basic physics.


Jones fails to counter the physics evidence .


He's too busy??? Go get someone else. Until then stop spreading disinfo. TV-Fakery is already proven. Stop saying otherwise. 


Nuff said.

TV fakery

is so easy to disprove it's not even funny. Look at the blast damage, the columns are clearly blasted inward. The damage is in the exact shape of a 767, no cutter charge could blast a six- inch chunk 2-foot square column to make it look like a wing hit the steel. Look at the crash itself - every picture and video of the collapse shows large chunks of smoking debris hurling out of the opposite side of the building at hundreds of miles an hour - this would require some sort of massive blast cannon (multiple cannons, actually, to account for various pieces of debris with independent trajectories) that were planted ahead of time. The fireball leaves the building with considerable momentum as well, so this would require some kind of 'directional' thermobaric weapon (hell just one more item on our super- cool list of exotic weaponry used on 9/11, right?). Then there's the airplane debris, the amateur videos, the still photos... Plus we have literally thousands of witnesses, of course, but I'm not even gonna get into that one. Basically there's a lot of proof that large planes hit the building. Insurmountable, really.

But hey, the no planers seem serious, so lets see what they got - insurmountable challenge or not. Well there's uh... hmm. Well there's some people that were on the opposite side of the building so they couldn't see a plane. No surprise there. There's the videos of the - hmm ha sorry I really love this one (wipes eyes) - there's the videos that supposedly show the plane trajectories 'not matching up', like this little YouTube beauty: http://youtube.com/watch?v=U4AlmPyQ4IU

Notice this disclaimer, "This video has the towers in the exact position." I'm guessing they mean in the exact same position, but I'm not sure. They're both helicopter shots, so i figure the suggestion is that both helicopters were occupying the exact same airspace at the same time. Therefore, because the planes don't overlay each other, they must have been cgi... Of course, beyond the impossibility of helicopters occupying the same location at any given time, and the improbability they would even fly close to each other, it's easy to see the difference in vantage points by the amount of WTC2 that is covered by WTC1, and the amount of WTC1's West wall that is visible. Elevations are different. Hell the rotation of the videos isn't even the same.. yet somehow this is supposed to be proof the planes were CG. And, sadly enough, it's one of the cartoon planers stronger pieces of 'evidence', by virtue of the fact that it's kinda a pain in the ass to debunk. Luckily, their little videos pretty much debunk themselves.

(hehe what I really love about the no planers is how I get to act like a true 9/11 denier and totally go off on dumb CTs...)
Your silly no planes theories are so silly I can pick a random piece of 'proof' and have a field day with it. Check out this image: http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/7208/choppedktlayo8.gif
The caption that accompanies it is "This gif, was made today using stills taken from this video which clearly shows a cartoon airplane attacking the South Tower on 9/11...." Wow it sure does! It also clearly shows heavy web compression artifacts - or were those pixel- like ufos that were flying around the towers? Seriously guys get some original camera master footage if you really want to make a serious attempt at proving that a wing disappearing for a frame is some CGI glitch...

The stuff on http://www.911tvfakery.net/ is really just laughable. They do a 'trajectory comparison' between two videos, one shot from Brooklyn and one from Jersey! There's a random frame from the South Park episode that 'supports' their claims... Most of it is just banter and silly links, but there's some real gems in there. To much to handle, really, but it's always good for a laugh...

The South Tower "Plane Strike" Video Violates Laws of Physics

including Newton's Laws of Motion and Conservation of Energy.

The videos are fake.


Aerospace Engineer says: airplanes don't meld into steel/concrete buildings, they crash against them.


and the lunar landings didn't happen because the moon is actually fake...

TV-Fakery is based on LAWS OF PHYSICS! (Steven Jones must agree)

You call it dubious? You call it disinfo? Well, I'm sure 9/11 Truth "Hero" Steven Jones will come to the rescue, eh?

A formal request was made to 20+ yr experienced former physics professor Jones to scientifically refute the physics behind the NPT/TV-Fakery theories!

So why doesn't he do it then? What's he afraid of? Certainly, if there were real planes at the WTC, a 20+ yr physics professor would have no problem refuting the physics behind TV-Fakery, eh?


Why is he Silent?


Answer... He's a government plant put in place to distract us from the real 9/11 research. He talks about thermite and thermate nonsense, which distracts us from what really happened:



Those are the two topics the government/media want to keep secret! Anyone NOT promoting those two topics are doing exactly what the government wants them to do!

IOW, anyone promoting thermite, bombs in the buildings, hijackers, remote control airplanes, LIHOP, etc is doing EXACTLY what the criminals in the government/media want them to do!

The 9/11 Truth Movement Needs To Wake Up
Before It's Too Late !!!



Jones was put in place to distract us in 9/11

just like

he was put in place to distract us in cold fusion!

I think these photo prove one thing.....

There were sources of LIGHT at ground zero.

Show "Experts" by James (not verified)

Judy Wood used the Keebler

Judy Wood used the Keebler elves example to make it simple to understand for the average person.

Her Star Wars Beam Weapon takes into account all of the evidence. Do you notice any errors in her paper?

And don't forget, she's the one who told us about Jones' deceptive work.

Show "Yeah right" by James (not verified)

Please show us!

1. What exactly did she copy from your blog.
We'd like to see the proof you have of this.
2. If you think that quoting you discredits her, then aren't you confirming to us that you have no credibility whatsoever?

Let's see if James can recognize real science...

Let's see if James knows the difference between name calling and real science.

James, please answer as many of the following questions as you can. Here is a picture to help you.

1. Where did the upper 100 stories of the north wall of WTC1 go?

2. Why do the remains of the 8-story WTC6 dwarf the remains of the (former) 110-story WTC1?

3. Why are the remaining outer columns of WTC1 standing straight up, with little to no evidence of buckling or even deformation -- if floors were pulled from them? And where are those floors? And even more striking, where is that material?

4. Does Steven Jones tell us how thermite, thermate, or super thermite (or even super-duper nano-enhanced thermite) could have done this -- or at least admit to us that he lied when he said that he considered all of the data?

5. Can you show a reference where "a engineering professor ... claims (the WTC) were destroyed by the Death Star" or admit that is merely a desperate and divisive ad hominem attack designed to divert the reader away from a scientific analysis?
- Please explain your answer.

6a. Most of all, what is your objective in attacking anyone who questions the OGCT?
In other words, why are you attacking the person rather than the science?

6b. Why do you feel the need to attack anyone who questions the OGCT?

Let us see if James has any ability to reason on science and logic.
(Hint: Divisive ad hominem attacks do not qualify.)

Dr. Steven E Jones Is the Achilles Heel of Controlled Demolition

For additional information related to the above blog post, see "Steven E. Jones Is the Achilles Heel of Controlled Demolition" at www.911blogger.com/node/3942#comment-83376.

See also "Questions about Former Professor Steven E. Jones" at www.911blogger.com/node/3942#comment-82594.

I respect the role that former Professor Steven E. Jones has played in getting the 9/11 Truth Movement to the point where we are now. However, whether we like it or not, we may need to ask these questions:

What happens if and when the mainstream media demolishes our ONLY 9/11 scientific truth hero, Dr. Steven E. Jones, because of flaws in his scientific methods and sources? I don't know. Do you?

If non-scientists can so easily poke holes his scientific methods and sources, then is former Professor Steven E. Jones BOTH the achilles heel AND the straw man of 9/11 Controlled Demolition?

What is the true role of those bloggers here and elsewhere who want us to STOP QUESTIONING the authority of former Professor Steven E. Jones?

Although many if not most of these bloggers may be sincere in their search for 9/11 Truth, are these NO-QUESTIONS-FOR-DR.-JONES bloggers only supporting the EVOLVING Official Government Conspiracy Theory (which may now include the possibly-false Thermite Theory of Controlled Demolition)?

Despite the obvious sincerity of some if not most bloggers who say that we should not question Dr. Jones, is this "No Questions" policy a part of some type of massive PsyOp that sets up the 9/11 Truth Movement to be discouraged and disheartened -- if and when SOME of what Dr. Jones says is proven to be false?

We all know that 9/11 Truth is held to a higher standard than the sometimes-fake "truth" that is reported on TV and in the media. Therefore, do we need to begin to ask the tough questions of Dr. Jones and other 9/11 scientists -- before others in the media and elsewhere do it for us? If we don't do it, then who will?

Small amount of explosives could bring down WTC

Web search for reviews of To Establish a Department of Energy and Natural Resources, Energy Research and Development Administration, and a Nuclear Safety and Licensing Commission


Bibliographic information
To Establish a Department of Energy and Natural Resources, Energy Research and Development Administration, and a Nuclear Safety and Licensing Commission

United States. Congress. Senate. Governmental Operations Committee
Publication Date:

Thermite is NOT an explosive...

Thermite is NOT an explosive.  "A thermite reaction is a type of aluminothermic reaction in which aluminium metal is oxidized by the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide."

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 -- while leaving much WTC aluminum siding & much WTC paper content intact and unburned.  The disintegrated WTC rubble piles were TINY.  In addition, Thermite probably did not toast & melt the cars that were found partially toasted & partially melted -- hundred of yards from the WTC towers.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite:

Civilian Uses: Thermite is "used for repair welding in-place thick steel sections such as locomotive axle-frames where the repair can take place without removing the part from its installed location. It can also be used for quickly cutting or welding steel such as rail tracks, without requiring complex or heavy equipment."

Military Uses: "Thermite grenades are used as incendiary devices to quickly destroy items or equipment when there is imminent danger of them being captured by enemy forces...  There are several ways to do this. One method is to weld the breach of the weapon closed by inserting an armed thermite grenade into it and then quickly closing the breech. This makes the weapon impossible to load. An alternative method is to insert an armed thermite grenade down the muzzle of the artillery piece, fouling the barrel. This makes the piece very dangerous to fire. Yet another method is to use Thermite to destroy the traversing and elevation mechanism on the cannon, making it impossible to properly aim the gun."

Except for SPECULATION about some exotic new form of Thermite, there is NO proof that Thermite has EVER been used as an explosive or to disintegrate steel & concrete in the manner that we all saw on & after 9/11. 

If so, then SHOW ME.  I'm from Missouri (literally).

The point of this posting

The point of this posting was to document that a government agency in a report in 1974 discussed that it would take only a small amount of conventional explosives to bring down the WTC towers. This supports the idea that CD would not necessarily require thousands and thousands of pounds of explosives. This report, in 1974, was created well before the creation of high tech explosives that exist today.

I agree completely that there is little real proof of thermite being used. Any existing indications found in post-collapse material can't be verified not to have been the result of the cleanup effort (And yes it is NOT an explosive - I'm not sure who have every said what it was).

Unfortunately, without a new and FULL investigation we will never know because we will not have access to the remaining WTC material, access to interview under oath people that were involved in the cleanup to document how it was and what was used (i.e., thermite? angular cuts?, etc.)

This is the entire problem with the 9/11 Truth movement when it tries to solve the "mystery" without being able to rely on the tools and techniques of real investigators. Try as they might, 9/11 Truthers are taking on a nearly impossible task of deducing from fragmented "evidence" what happened on 9/11.

The best course is to promote a new investigation by documenting and publicizing the obvious inconsistencies with the "official" story. That horse needs to be beat to death in order for the public to realize that a new (and real) investigation is required.

Thermite soften steel.....

Thermite soften steel..... explosives blow the rest

Combination..... you act as if we are saying the thermite was used alone.

Thermite was used most likely to soften the columns at the point of impact

and if thermite incendiary devices were placed with-in the box coulmns they could have easily done thewir work with-out being seen by the casual observer.... and by the time they burnt through.... the building was falling.... about an hours time.

If I had a steel box column.... I could show you how it was done.... with the box style column the best way to affect them symmetrically with thermite would have been from the inside.....and the concealment simply aided in this type of operation

has anyone seen the report on building 7... I believe it was done by NIST... that shows the steel samples that were vaporized? where their molecular structure had been altered.... caused by extreme heat..... Diesel fuel? I think not.

Steven Jones FAILS to use his "expertise" to disprove TV-Fakery!





A formal request has been made by 911 researcher Coffinman for Jones to use the Laws Of Physics to refute NPT/TV-Fakery, but he fails to respond!

Dear Mr Jones, if there really were planes, why don't you explain it using the LAWS OF SCIENCE???

I know you were a government plant put in place years ago to discredit cold fusion. You performed different experiments, put the results in the media, and discredited the original research. (Jones' deceitful cold fusion research is documented for all to see in this 46 minute google film. Fast forward to 11:00 for the segment on Jones.)


Jones is doing the exact same thing with his thermite! Discrediting (or at least distracting us from) Judy Wood's research, which was publicized BEFORE Jones came along! Jones also attempts to discredit TV-Fakery and Directed Energy Weapons WITHOUT using the Laws of Physics!

Certainly, with his expertise, he should have no problem doing so. So why doesn't he???

Please Steven, use your 20+ years experience as a physics professor and explain.






More problems with Jones:


The Dark Side Of Professor Steven E. Jones

Professor Steven Jones Trashes The Demolition Evidence

Was Steven Jones A 'CIA Mole' To Discredit Cold Fusion? (15MB MP3 Download)

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?


Be sure to read the blog at the top of this page. It documents how Jones changed the colors of a photograph in his paper to trick the 9/11 Truth Movement!



It seems Steven Jones has since removed the picture I reference above in my blog! (Is this really a surprise??)

Fortunately the original PDF is backed up and a link will be provided within the next couple days. (As soon as I get a free disk space account up and running.)



Correction/clarification to my edit above: The link I give to Jones' paper (in my blog @ top of this page) is to ST911.org's site, which still contains the doctored photo. The following text accompanies the photo, which is on page 18 (last checked Dec 3, 2006, 5:30PM ET):

Workers evidently peering into the hot “core” under the WTC rubble.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1858491.stm For recorded eyewitness testimony of the molten metal pools under both Towers and WTC 7, see: http://911proof.com/11.html .


(NOTE: It is highly possible that the individual who controls that site, GeorgeWashington, (who I also hear is Steven Jones' personal attorney) will replace the paper from ST911.org once he reads this. I therefore recommend that everyone back it up themselves. If it's removed, I'll post a link to a backup in this thread.)



Jones removed the photo and modified the text on the "Journal" site he himself runs. Link here. The following is the new text (page 18, last checked Dec 3, 2006, 5:30PM ET):

The top photo (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1858491.stm) may show the glow of hot metal in the rubble; the second photo clearly does so. It is labeled “Red Hot Debris” and is published in LiRo News, Nov. 2001, http://www.liro.com/lironews.pdf . Moreover, there is
recorded eyewitness testimony of the molten metal pools under both Towers and WTC 7; see:
html. . A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero:



There's a backed up version here of the original file from Jones' "Journal" site, which contains the original doctored picture, and the following text. (Note: if the backup link goes down due to high traffic, I'll archive it elsewhere and post the new link in this thread.)

Workers evidently peering into the hot “core” under the WTC rubble.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1858491.stm I am further checking whether these photos show the glow of molten metal, or of a bright light inserted into the hole. In any case, there is recorded eyewitness testimony of the molten metal pools under both Towers and WTC 7; see: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-moltenmetal-


(NOTE: Also interesting is how Jones' references GeorgeWashington's blog. Getting help from his attorney?? Let's remember GeorgeWashington is a BIG LIHOP pusher.)


Bottom Line: Jones' "Journal of 9/11 Studies" is a fraud! Look how many times he changed the data in his own papers, and without even citing the changes! FRAUD!

He tries to HIDE the fact that he used a doctored photo! FRAUD!


The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a FRAUD!

Peer Review?
By Who???


more of the same from cbb...fraud! fraud! fraud!!!

Will you post your real name on your website?

How will you prove Your photo isn't doctored?

How will you prove anything?

All you do is vehemently acuse, acuse, acuse......

Who is it who is trying to divide the movement?

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.

do I need to explain this to you like you're a child?

do I need to explain this to you like you're a child? Look at ALL the information, and not just that photo. Try putting things into context if you're capable of doing so.

Does he need to explain it to you like a child?

Clearly he's doing everything possible to disrupt legitimate 911 research and smear those who pose the greatest threat to his twisted fuckin theories. I mean there's people in this movement that I disagree with or even despise (hey like Wood, Reynolds, Haupt) but that doesn't mean I waste my time posting messages about them yelling 'fraud! fraud! fraud! ahhhh I'm a crazy shit!' - Christ he even formats the 'frauds' in different colors, I wonder how long that took him...

CB, as that jackass Penn would say, "You ASS hole"

you certainly sound like a...


Infinite Energy Magazine Shows Steven Jones as FRAUD Cold Fusion

CLEAR example of how Jones was a government plant to discredit Cold Fusion. (See my other comment posts for more links).


Breaking Through Editorial: Ethics in the Cold Fusion Controversy
(Originally Published January-February, 2001 In Infinite Energy Magazine



Dr. Steven Jones in his skeletal three-page commentary confirms that he still trusts his sparse cold fusion neutron measurements—fair enough. But Jones, the egocentric denier of excess heat claims from day one, apparently has learned nothing and still knows nothing about the process of science. He is an example of the kind of scientist identified in the Bockris quote above. Jones writes disingenuously, "It is high time to strongly question claims of cold fusion based on crude techniques and to demand tests at a rigorous scientific-proof level. . .I have not seen any compelling evidence of any 'cold fusion' effects to date."



Jones is a






Steven Jones Cheated the Environment Out of Clean Energy!

Pons and Fleischmann were cheated from patenting their Cold Fusion discoveries. This was done by none other than Steven Jones, who also discredited cold fusion in the public eye.

Pons and Fleischmann were not the only ones cheated out of patents. Watch "Free Energy: The Race to Zero Point" to learn of other scientists who were denied patents. Also learn of a scientist who was forced into prison without a trial!


Safe, clean energy DOES exist! Steven Jones helped keep the world addicted to oil!



Jones Alters Colors of Ground Zero Photograph to Deceive People

Youtube Video: Steven Jones Sabotaged The Development Of Free Energy (Segment from Heavy Watergate film below)

Google Video: "Phenomenon Archives: Heavy Watergate, the War Against Cold Fusion" (Fast forward to 11:00 for segment on Jones.)

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate? A peer-review of Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research

Infinite Energy Magazine: Breaking Through Editorial: Ethics in the Cold Fusion Controversy

The Dark Side Of Professor Steven E. Jones

Professor Steven Jones Trashes The Demolition Evidence

Scholars For 9/11 Plagiarism And Disinformation

Cold Fusion's CIA Mole (Analysis MP3 of Jones' work)

so do you guys get

so do you guys get dental...?

ABC NEWS: US hails airborne laser as weapons milestone

US hails airborne laser as weapons milestone

The head of the Pentagon's Missile Defence Agency has hailed what he cast as epochal progress toward putting a high-energy laser aboard a modified Boeing 747 to zap ballistic missiles that could be fired by North Korea and Iran.

But the Pentagon's former top weapons tester poured doubt on the project, saying it faced major technical hurdles and might be defeated by a simple countermeasure.


[Comment from CB: Keep in mind that the military is always 15-20 years ahead in technology from where they admit.]


Full Article Here


Show "Blocked Cold Fusion U.S. Patent Linked to Suspicious Murder" by CB_Brooklyn

"The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis"

The Scientific Method

Applied to the

Thermite Hypothesis


Judy Wood1 and Morgan Reynolds2

December 14, 2006





I'm Sorry

Let me do a "Danny Bonaduce"

"Excuse me.... What is your name?.... Please forgive my language."

"When in history has thermite been used to demolish a building?"

"Show me an instance where Thermite has been used to bring down a building?"

"Google it and show me the article."

"Thermite is not explosive. Explain the pulverization of the building"

These are the questions posed by this paper?..... OK.... OK....





You FUCKING make me SICK!!

THERMITE / THERMATE was NOT the only method of this buildings demise. The logic behind writing this paper is so flawed.

You see.... explosions make noise.... thermite / thermate was used to weaken the structure so that they could minimize the amount of explosives needed to bring the building down... thus minimizing the amount of noise and visible signs of explosions.

I believe that the thermite / thermate was primarily used at the points of impact. to melt the structure and initiate the collapse as well as create the appearance of intense fires and prevalent smoke.... fires impervious to sprinkler systems. I think it was also used on many of the core columns to weaken these massive steel columns to allow the cutter charges to use less explosives as well as inflict maximum damage.

Once the thermite / thermate initiated collapse of the upper portion of the structure..... the falling debris would provide noise to cover the sound of explosions.... giving excuse to explain the noise..... but the falling debris also provided visual cover for explosions as the building imploded.

Explosions which created the pulverization of materials.... pulverization which was also aided by effect of the falling debris.

I do not know why these people insist on seperating the possible or proposed theories and isolating them in their papers..... It's like eating two pieces of bread and calling it a sandwich.

I have not heard much from Morgan Renolds lately unless it's in association with clinging to Judy Wood....

SPACE BEAMS!?!?!? Come on people!.... You honestly believe you can promote this as a viable reasoning to the collapse of these buildings based on the fact that the bath tub wasn't damaged?

I'll tell you why the bath tub wasn't damaged.... there was no need to set explosive charges anywhere near the bath tub..... the falling debris would do a hell of a job on the remaining building above the 10th floor.... there was no reason to set explosives there.... near the bath tub.

The closest that explosives would need to be placed to the bath tub would be in the basement at the core column locations.... and these explosives could have been set several levels above the bath tub.... they wouldn't need to blow the core columns at the very bottom... actually that would do them absolutely no good because the columns would only seperate from the bedrock but not allow them to fall very far.... it would be much more effective and efficient to blow these columns 30 to 50 ft up from the base.

with this taken into account.... the only damage that the bathtub would incur would be from falling debris.... and that was cushioned by the lower floors which would have mainly been free from explosive charges... except for the core structure.... the bath tub was protected for the most part.

In order for the concrete of the bath tub to be damaged by explosives..... the explosives would have had to be placed directly up against the concrete.

You're sorry? I think you're right.

But, what a sorry excuse for accepting the murder of so many people!

And, you're right. Thermite couldn't have done it. So, therefore you're saying, what? the WTC towers are still standing?

What's with this "space beams" nonsense that Mr. Jones talks about? I haven't heard that term mentioned by anyone else. I wonder why he uses such a derogatory term for the project he worked on.

If Mr. Jones won't tell you about his work on energy weapons, perhaps you might want to see where they've been used before, so please read the paper under construction by Drs. Wood and Reynolds. They provide plenty of evidence where such items have been used before. In contrast, Mr. Jones has not provided even one instance where thermite has been used to bring down a building in controlled demolition.

I have to ask, why are you so desperately trying to protect an impossible story?

Just in the nick of time... a new joke paper!

We were running low on laughs - thanks man!

Lady Spacebeam and Captain Morgan use my vids!

Lady Spacebeam and Captain Morgan use my vids in their new joke paper! W00000000000000000000000000000000000t!!

AWWWW the videos don't work anymore!

I guess they'll have to edit their joke paper. :)


If those were your videos and you removed them

you must know they incriminate Jones.

So, why didn't you recognize this before Wood and Reynolds pointed it out? Were you hoping the world was that stupid? That Jones could attack Wood and Reynolds with divisive ad hominem attacks and not be held accountable?

You insult our intelligence.

You show your true colors.

If disinfo crapmeisters wish to use my videos

they may ask my permission beforehand. :)


The Scientific Method


What is with this site? This is the first I've seen the title of this article posted here, yet I KNOW that at least three different people have submitted blog posts about it which were not approved. And, why isn't it "approved" to question the KoolAid that we are fed? Is it true that we are only allowed to drink just the government-approved KoolAid at this site?

So, it is becoming clear that 911blogger censors "truth" and is part of this effort to destroy the truth movement. It is not just becoming clear, it is becoming crystal clear!

I guess my post, here, means that I'll probably be banned. After all, the "management" here seems to reward those who promote the official government cover-up story and speak in unity to that story... ra, ra, ra... Those who don't worship the official story are tossed.

The person who turned me on to questioning the events of 9/11 actually warned me about this site, suspecting that it was a CIA operation. Well... I didn't really believe him until about a week ago.

dz, the ring leader of this circus, knows that he has not approved these blog posts. I know of three, and sure there are more, who have submitted blog posts about the "Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis."

I applaud the authors of that article for exposing one of the perpetrators whose job it was to infiltrate the "truth movement" and to help cover up this horrid crime. So, who would want to cover up the truth? What is the motive for covering up the truth?

"dz, the ring leader of this circus"

If you don't like this site... maybe you should fuck off?

In Defense of Steven Jones: the Deliberate Effort to Discredit him and his Research

CALTECH Scientist Speaks Up About Steven Jones Cold Fusion

The origins of Cold Fusion have been loudly and widely documented in the press and popular literature. Pons and Fleischmann, fearing they were about to be scooped by a competitor named Steven Jones from nearby Brigham Young University, and with the encouragement of their own administration, held a press conference on March 23, 1989 at the University of Utah, to announce what seemed to be the scientific discovery of the century.




oh, so now a Caltech scientist is "in on" "discrediting"

Jones too? Isn't it possible that JONES is the FRAUD here?


Grow a brain and get a grip, will ya?

"Grow a brain"?

Did you pick that up from Judy Wood?



no, I got that from people

no, I got that from people like you

WIRED Magazine Article About Steven Jones' Cold Fusion Fraud

Many physicists were highly skeptical that a couple of chemists could have pulled off such a feat. More damning, they were claiming to validate their far-fetched theory via an experiment that wasn't properly documented. In their defense, Pons and Fleischmann explained that they couldn't reveal all the details because the University of Utah's patent had not yet been approved. They admitted that the press conference had been premature, but claimed the University had urged them to go public when another scientist - a physicist named Steve Jones - turned out to be pursuing similar work.




Leading Expert of Directed-Energy Research Speaks About Weaponry

DR. J. DOUGLAS BEASON, Col. (USAF, ret.), a key architect and leading expert of directed-energy research for the past twenty-six years, holds a Ph.D. in laser-technology physics.


Dr Beason also discusses the "Beam Experiment Aboard Rocket" (BEAR) Experiment in the late 1980s.


See update in Judy Wood's paper with MP3s and links: