Why The Towers Fell

[quandary121]

Therein lies the problem.

There is no problem you have proved NOTHING
Oh yea when are you going to talk about

BUILDING 7.???????????

 

[I think not]

When were these photos taken quandry?

 

[Just the Facts]

Your trying to tell me that by hitting each floor that no resistance is met by this action.
your off your head pal.?

That is clearly false, and you need look no further than video of the collapse itself to see that it's false. You can see debris outpacing the speed of the main collapse. Therefore, it was not freefall speed. Also, ITN is being generous with 12 seconds as I'm pretty sure I recall it being more like 18 seconds. But I could be wrong about the exact time.

 

[lone wolf]

One purpose for the spray of water is to dampen the site just to keep asbestos-laden dust down. The heat source downstairs is something that always gets tippy-toed around.

 

[quandary121]

When were these photos taken quandry?

How about this one then pyroclastic clouds caused by an explosion turning the concrete into air born size particles just like you see emanating from a volcanic eruption

 

[Just the Facts]

Top picture clearly shows cut metal in a demolition style cut (at an angle to make the building drop in on it self)also what are they spraying with water in this photo not jet fueled fires no way
picture two shows the basement exposed and a unknown heat source

Those cuts were made by torches by the cleanup crew, that's been well established.

Interestingly, the building didn't drop in on itself. It went spewing outwards. You should watch the video of the collapse one day, it's very revealing as to what actually happened.

 

[I think not]

You know what quandry, don't even bother answering my questions because you will revert back to what you have been saying, actually correction, what you have been cutting and pasting. Lone wolf siad it best, you're not looking for debate, you're looing for agreement.

You have obviously developed into quite the expert, you're a demolition expert, your knowledge of gravity and free fall speeds are obviously worthy of a PhD and your interpretation of cut steel is obviously viewed with an experienced eye.

You're swift to shoot down anyone that tows the mainstream line, and yet you cut and paste from websites that you have no clue how credible the information is or what their field of expertise is, for all you know, those websites have been created by me to rake up money from web hits.

No no, you're not looking for the truth, you just cling to the alternate theory becuase your brain cannot egenrate enough energy to process any information that is against your bias.

I'll bet you cling to every single conspiracy theory because it is simply within your nature.

Enjoy your diatribe.

 

[quandary121]

When were these photos taken quandry?

(10/31/01) the first pic and (11?/?/01) the second

 

[Just the Facts]

One purpose for the spray of water is to dampen the site just to keep asbestos-laden dust down. The heat source downstairs is something that always gets tippy-toed around.

Yeah it was definitly amazing how long the site burned. I don't think thermite would have burned that long.

 

[quandary121]

Those cuts were made by torches by the cleanup crew, that's been well established.

Interestingly, the building didn't drop in on itself. It went spewing outwards. You should watch the video of the collapse one day, it's very revealing as to what actually happened.

look stop trying to twist what i say around to make your self look smart, it clearly falls in on it self ,it does not tip over or fall in one direction or the other and because of subcequent explosions bits of metal the size of a plane can be seen sticking out of ajacent buildings, you just trying to split hairs about what ive said ,adding nothing but expecting me to come up with all the answers ,and you know full well it is impossible to show all the proofs as the material was taken away and shiped abroard.



BUILDING 7.???????????

 

[quandary121]

Just the Facts

I don't think

Is about as far as you get pal

 

[quandary121]

[SIZE=+3]Whistleblower Information[/SIZE]



​

Contact Information
[SIZE=+1]to Qui Tam Case
[/SIZE]​

​

[SIZE=-4]Top [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+2]Intellectual Curiosity vs. Agenda
[/SIZE]​

From Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:

"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university,

Is this what Eisenhower warned us of?​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]Figure 1. My intellectual integrity prevents me from calling this a collapse. This is why I have chosen to stand up. My conscience leaves me no other choice.[/FONT]historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

Text for Eisenhower's farewell address
Audio for Eisenhower's farewell address
​

[SIZE=-4]Top [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+2]NIST's use of the word "collapse" is deceptive [/SIZE]
​

From my Request for Correction and NIST's reply to my Request for Corrections:

NIST's use of the word "collapse" is deceptive to describe what is seen in the figure above. My

​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]Figure 2. The building dissolved into dust before it reached the ground. [SIZE=-2](9/11/01) Source[/SIZE][/FONT]Request for Correction (RFC) stated that NIST completely failed to satisfy the first objective that it claimed to address in NCSTAR 1. NIST, or persons acting on its behalf and/or with whom it has contracted for services has caused to be disseminated false information that does not address what NIST claimed was a specific objective:
[SIZE=-1]p. xxxv (p. 37): “The specific objectives were:
1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;”[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Quoted text: Excerpt from NIST's NCSTAR 1 document, p. xxxv (p. 37), which I quoted in my RFC.[/SIZE]In NIST's response to my RFC, they acknowledged what I said and agreed that they did not satisfy their first objective, which was to determine why and how WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed. In doing so, they admitted fraud.
​

[SIZE=-1]Your request for correction asserts that ".. .NIST completely failed to satisfy the first objective that it claimed to address in NCSTAR 1," namely to determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.
As stated in NCSTAR 1, NIST only investigated the factors leading to the initiation of the collapses of the WTC towers, not the collapses themselves.[/SIZE][FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=-2]Quoted text: Two excerpts from NIST's July 27, 2008 response to my RFC.[/SIZE][/FONT]​

NCSTAR 1’s title is flawed in that the visual evidence set forth in my RFC demonstrated that the nomenclature “collapse” as contained in the title and throughout NCSTAR 1 is false, deceptive and misleading. The use of the word “collapse” does not, then, comport with, among other things, the integrity component of data quality requirements. The World Trade Center Towers did not collapse. Instead, they were quite obviously pulverized from top to bottom. While NCSTAR 1 acknowledges that “…the stories below the level of “collapse” initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.”

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]Figure 4. Where did the building go?
[SIZE=-2](9/11/01) Source:[/SIZE][/FONT]​

NIST cannot make a statement that the World Trade Center towers came down in “free fall” on one hand, andthen indicate, on the other, that doing so is a form of collapse.

The conditions there involved are not a collapse; and, in any event, NIST acknowledges that it does not analyze that part of the sequence of events; thus, it is utterly incongruent for NIST to describe that which it acknowledges went without analysis on its part.

Use of the descriptive word “collapse” to describe a process whereby the twin towers were turned to dust without the ability to have top heavy mass interact with mass underneath the pulverized mass sufficient to satisfy the criteria of two of the laws of physics is visibly obvious. The two laws of physics that are violated to such a degree that they are ignored altogether by NIST, in complete and total derivation of the requirements of the DQA are: Law of Conservation of Momentum; and Law of Conservation of Energy.
​

 

[quandary121]

In the very first picture above how come pieces of concrete and other objects can be seen to disperse not only outwards but upward??????????

 

[quandary121]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=+3]The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]by[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]Judy Wood[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=-1]1[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times] and Morgan Reynolds[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]December 14, 2006[/FONT]


This article originated as a list of questions Steven Jones had been asking us to answer about our research.
We reworded his questions to apply to his own research work. Having asked us these questions, Dr. Jones should be able to answer these about his own hypothesis.
(This article has been "peer-reviewed.")
​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=+2]I. Introduction
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Steven Earl Jones, a recently retired BYU professor of physics, talks a great deal about "The Scientific Method." For example, Dr. Jones presents this slide:


​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=-1]Answers to Objections and Questions, July 19, 2006 [pdf (7/19/06) p. 34][/SIZE][/FONT]​

Dr. Jones has used these principles as a club to beat on the work of other 9/11 researchers, yet his own work concerning causation in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11 has not been subjected to the same standard. Below we test Dr. Jones' thermite hypothesis for proof of concept, consistency with the data, practical applications and other issues. After more than a year of development, the thermite hypothesis continues to fall short, as demonstrated below.

Our analysis is not a personal attack nor is it ad hominem. Unfortunately in the past, Dr. Jones has too readily asserted that his critics, even if they are his peers, have engaged in personal attacks (whether they did or not) and he has therefore failed to benefit from their substantive comments. This article is about scientific content: what works to account for the WTC data and what does not.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]Professor Steven Jones' presentation at UC Berkeley on November 11, 2006
Q&A session with Jim Hoffman[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=-1]Watch beginning at 7:30, total time = 9:48[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]Watch the video above as Dr. Jones giggles about a female professor's loss of her job. Is Dr. Jones himself free of ad hominem attacks?[/FONT]​

​

​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=+2]II. Proof of Concept[/SIZE][/FONT]

1. Where is the proof of concept for the thermite hypothesis? Wikipedia Encyclopedia defines "Proof of concept" as "a short and/or incomplete realization (or synopsis) of a certain method or idea(s) to demonstrate its feasibility, or a demonstration in principle, whose purpose is to verify that some concept or theory is probably capable of exploitation in a useful manner. The proof of concept is usually considered a milestone on the way of a fully functioning prototype." Dr. Jones has never laid it out.
2. Where is the proof that thermite has EVER been used to bring down major buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)? To our knowledge thermite has never been used to bring down skyscrapers.
3. Where is the proof that thermate has EVER been used to bring down major buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)? To our knowledge thermate has never been used to bring down skyscrapers.
4. Where is the proof that nano-enhanced thermite has EVER been used to bring down major buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)? To our knowledge nano-enhanced thermite has never been used to bring down skyscrapers. Dr. Jones has criticized the competing hypotheses of others as "wacky, unproven ideas." We wonder if the same denunciation applies to thermite.
5. In his Berkeley lecture, Steven Jones claimed that nano-enhanced thermite or thermate could account for pulverization of the Twin Towers. One difficulty with his hypothesis is that nano-enhanced thermite apparently did not exist in 2001 and only recently has the Department of Defense awarded contracts to prove and develop such a product.
   
   To see if thermite/thermate/nano-enhanced thermite have ever been used or even tested for pulverization, check here:

Google for "nano-enhanced" (thermite or thermate) Google for thermite and CD (without WTC, Jones, 911, 9/11, mini-nukes)
Google for thermate and CD (without WTC, Jones, 911, 9/11)
Google for "nano-enhanced" (thermite or thermate) and CDGoogle for "directed-energy weapons" and CD
Google for "beam weapon" and CD
Google for "space based weapons" and CD
[SIZE=-2]More [/SIZE][SIZE=-2]here [/SIZE].

​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=+2]III. Pulverization[/SIZE][/FONT]
​

1. Where is the proof that thermite has EVER been used to completely pulverize buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)? The mechanisms of cutting and pulverization are mutually exclusive and thermite cuts and melts, it is not explosive. "Cutting requires action in one direction," says Jeff Strahl, a 9/11 researcher, "while pulverization requires action in all directions."
2. Where is the proof, experimental or otherwise, that thermate has EVER been used to completely pulverize buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)?
3. Where is the proof that nano-enhanced thermite has EVER been used to completely pulverize buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)? Could thermite have been used to turn the upper 80+ floors of the Twin Towers to ultra-fine dust?
4. Above all, how do angle-cut columns relate to pulverizing a building? What is the connection? We fail to see it.
   
   To see if thermite/thermate/nano-enhanced thermite have ever been used or even tested for pulverization, check above.

1. 
   Jones claims that Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds have not presented evidence of "proof of concept" for their directed-energy weapon theory. Wood and Reynolds have indeed presented evidence for proof of concept on behalf of their theory. They show experimental evidence as well as other evidence:

StarWarsBeam1.html
StarWarsBeam2.html
StarWarsBeam3.html
StarWarsBeam4.html
StarWarsBeam5.html
StarWarsBeam6.html
StarWarsBeam7.html
StarWarsAppendix1.html
StarWarsAppendix1.html#ExtraReading
StarWarsAppendix1.html#Possibilities
StarWarsAppendix2.html
StarWarsAppendix3.html


​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=+2]IV. Energy and Placement[/SIZE][/FONT]
​

1. Where is the proof of concept for the hypothesis that thermite, thermate, and/or nano-enhanced thermite can do any of the things he claimed it did at the WTC, much less explain how angle-cut columns at ground level had any relevance to what pulverized the buildings? He fails to explain how a cutting/melting mechanism can pulverize.
2. Exactly how much energy would be required to pulverize 80-90% of each WTC tower? Dr. Jones has not shown that thermite/thermate/nano-enhanced thermite can generate sufficient energy. Exactly how much energy is required?
3. Exactly what volume of thermite/thermate/nano-enhanced thermite would be required in total to be placed in the building to generate enough energy?
4. Exactly where did it need to be placed? Over how much surface area in the building did it have to be placed? For example, what x% of every beam, y% of every floor, z% of every wall, etc.? How thick would it have to be against various steel columns, beams, concrete, etc.? Derrick Grimmer attempted one calculation along these lines and found that thermite would need to be slightly less than 3 inches thick over the surface of every box column [Grimmer].
5. How many hours of labor would it take to cover every surface of the building, carefully avoiding detection by WTC office workers? Grimmer's calculation ignores the much greater volume of the floors. In any event, thermite does not explode and pulverize. It cannot explain the data.
6. Exactly who placed all the alleged thermite there? Please give us their names, ages, and social security numbers for validation. [SIZE=+2]J[/SIZE]
7. Who directed them to place the thermite/thermate/nano-enhanced thermite there?

1. [FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]Professor Steven Jones' presentation at UC Berkeley on November 11, 2006
   Q & A session that followed the presentation.[/FONT]
   
   [FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=-1]Total time = 8:49[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]
   Can Dr. Jones answer a challenging question about his work?[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=+2]V. Ignition and Control[/SIZE]
[/FONT]

1. How was the thermite ignited? Isn't thermite difficult to ignite?
   
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
   
   [FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=+2]Ignition[/SIZE][/FONT]
   
   Conventional thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These cannot be reached with conventional black-powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done right, but this should never be attempted for safety reasons. The torch can preheat the entire pile of thermite which will make it explode instead of burning slowly when it finally reaches ignition temperature.
   
   Often, strips of magnesium metal are used as fuses. Magnesium burns at approximately the temperature at which thermite reacts, around 2500 kelvin (4000 °F). This method is notoriously unreliable: magnesium itself is hard to ignite, and in windy or wet conditions the strip may be extinguished. Also, magnesium strips do not contain their own oxygen source so ignition cannot occur through a small hole. A significant danger of magnesium ignition is the fact that the metal is an excellent conductor of heat; heating one end of the ribbon may cause the other end to transfer enough heat to the thermite to cause premature ignition. Despite these issues, magnesium ignition remains popular amongst amateur thermite users.
   
   The reaction between potassium permanganate and glycerine is used as an alternative to the magnesium method. When these two substances mix, a spontaneous reaction will begin, slowly increasing the temperature of the mixture until flames are produced. The heat released by the oxidation of glycerine is sufficient to initiate a thermite reaction. However, this method can also be unreliable and the delay between mixing and ignition can vary greatly due to factors such as particle size and ambient temperature.
   
   Another method of igniting is to use a common sparkler to ignite the mix. These reach the necessary temperatures and provide a sufficient amount of time before the burning point reaches the sample.
   
   A stoichiometric mixture of finely powdered Fe(III) oxide and aluminum may be ignited using ordinary red-tipped book matches by partially embedding one match head in the mixture, and igniting that match head with another match, preferably held with tongs in gloves to prevent flash burns.
   
   
   
   ​
2. Exactly how was ignition accurately controlled? How was it timed? Where is the experiment demonstrating it? Has thermite ever been ignited by remote control? Have multiple thermite ignitions ever been set off with exact timing by remote control? How many remote control radio frequencies would be required to do this? How many ignition devices would be needed to cut 236 outer columns and 47 core columns on each of the 110 floors? An ignition device on each column on each floor would total 31,130 ignitions. None of this would cut floor trusses or pulverize the concrete floors or any of the WTC contents, much less steel beams.

Dr. Jones says the buildings "collapsed," but he does not show the exact mechanism of "collapse," he does not model it (just like NIST does not model it), and he does not run experiments that demonstrate it. Of course such modeling is futile because the buildings did not collapse, they were blown to kingdom come. Where was the stack of all the steel from each tower at Ground Zero?

​

9/11 Truth: Structural Failures vs. Controlled Demolitions

This is a video response to
Preview of New 9/11 Truth Documentary "Improbable Collapse"​

And what about the seismic signal? If most of the material from the Twin Towers crashed to the ground, there should have been a significant seismic event. Yet a NIST scientist says that "...the collapse of the towers were not of any magnitude that was seismically significant..." Here is the complete quote:


​

The National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Advisory Committee met via teleconference on Thursday, December 14, 2006, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.The following statement was made on the WTC1 and WTC2 seismic signals:
"The signals’ strength due to the collapse of the towers were not of any magnitude that was seismically significant from an earthquake design standpoint or from the design or a failure of a structural component or of I would say of a piping system that might be used in a structure, so ah there wasn’t anything that gave us pause in terms of that being a significant seismic event to have ruptured the pipeline."

Entire session: NCST Advisory Committee Webcast (mp3) (11.8 MB)

Segment: WTC SeismicSignature NCSTAd (mp3) (132 kB)
NCST Advisory Committee Met December 14, 2006

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]Thanks to Andrew Johnson for recording this.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=-1]http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/[/SIZE][/FONT]​

​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=+2]VI. The Data[/SIZE]
[/FONT]

1. Even if Jones were to prove the thermite concept, can he show an "official chain of custody" for each of his samples of materials allegedly from the WTC? Jones himself said at the American Scholars Symposium (ASS*) in Los Angeles in June that all of his samples came from unofficial sources.
2. Can Dr. Jones show how each of his samples is valid and meaningful in terms of possible causation? For example, suppose Dr. Jones acquired a dust sample and had established its chain of custody. How would a chemical analysis of this dust sample prove anything about what caused the devastation at the WTC? What is the logic? A guy in a white lab coat working with something in his lab does not in and of itself establish any causal connection with the events of 9/11 in New York City. We cannot presume a connection, it must be shown. Connections must be drawn conceptually and supported empirically. That is using the scientific method.
3. Dust is not location specific. A dust sample does not allow discrimination about what caused the destruction WTC7 versus WTC1 and 2. Videos, eyewitness testimony, the debris pile, the protective bathtub and other evidence establish that WTC1 and 2 exploded and WTC7 imploded. No amount of dust analysis will change these facts. The destruction method for WTC1 and 2 were fundamentally different from the destruction method for WTC7.
4. How do you know a sample is representative of WTC1 and/or WTC2? Many of the vehicles in the area had their engine blocks disintegrate. So, if you take what's left from one of these cars, it may, for example, have a much higher ratio of barium-to-steel than the typical car. Weren't some of the offices occupied by a medical supply company? How can anyone rule out that someone had barium in a WTC office? And so on.
5. If the Twin Towers were destroyed by unconventional means, how could a scientist know what traces of material it would or would not leave? How would she know a priori?

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=+2]VII. The Scientific Method[/SIZE]
[/FONT]

1. Dr. Jones offers no proof that thermite, thermate, or nano-enhanced thermite could have pulverized the buildings, so would it be logical to conclude that he is now pushing "mini-nukes" because that the only other method Jones has written about? The illogic of this conclusion should be obvious but why has Dr. Jones said that "Wood and Reynolds are promoting mini-nukes" just because we find thermite an unsatisfactory hypothesis? We explicitly declare mini-nukes inconsistent with the data of 9/11.
2. Dr. Jones has described his thermite/thermate/nano-energetic thermite "results" as "preliminary" for more than a year. When will Dr.Jones acquire enough confidence in his work to reach conclusions? How can a paper with "inconclusive" results be accepted in a tier-one "peer-reviewed" journal? For that matter, does it go through "peer review" every time Jones changes it? Dr. Jones claimed his paper was accepted in a "peer-reviewed" journal over a year ago. When will it appear? We are still waiting.
   
   
   [FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=+1]Dr. Jones presented, "9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions (2006)," February 1, 2006, Utah. An excerpt from the question and answer session follows. [/SIZE][/FONT]
   (Q: = questioner, J: = Jones)
   
   
   Q: I keep hearing reference that you've -ah- published your paper in a peer review journal -
   
   J: Uh - It's not been published, it's been accepted, but that takes time to get it published of course -
   
   Q: OK - let's just -um - waiting for it , because to me if it gets published, is that a significant journal and would it be newsworthy and when is this going to break into the national media ?
   
   J: You know- this - it's actually getting into the media - Desert News you know has had articles lately. Miami Herald today, pleased to say about our scholars for truth group, and as far as publication, I'm hoping - uh - I haven't asked the - editor recently but -ah - I'm - uh -It's this spring.
   
   Q: So what's the journal again ?
   
   J: It's a book and -ah - by - It's actually a book and it's in now in -ah - Professor Griffin's book which -uh - In the title is - 9 - 11 ..ah..beginning of the American empire. Or something that- I don't remember exactly.
   
   Q: But my question's that - in the academic world for something to get legitimacy it needs to go through peer review in a substantial national or international tier one journal, and I ‘m just wondering if you've, you've submitted anything to such a journal.
   
   J: Well, hehum, of course we're calling for an investigation and -ah - I do believe that this material on the fake Bin Laden will be publishable in that, in a major journal. That's what we're looking for -
   
   (CROSSTALK)
   
   Q: What about the stuff on WTC7 ? That should be in the New York Times.
   
   

   Thanks to Rick Siegel and Gerard Holmgren for this transcript.
   [SIZE=-1]http://www.rickseigel.com/web/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=125[/SIZE]​

   
   
   ​
3. Why does Dr. Jones continue to boast that he uses "the scientific method" after it has been pointed out repeatedly that his thermite hypothesis does not account for the data? [Reynolds and Wood] Does not science throw a failed hypothesis overboard after the evidence repeatedly contradicts it?
4. Dr. Jones claims to have debunked our August 23 article, but we have never seen a full, point-by-point response to it. While Dr. Jones claims it was an ad hominem, personal attack, it was a content-rich, peer review of Jones’ work. Dr. Jones trickled out a few initial comments and kept changing his file. He never addressed the issues we raised.
   Here is an example of Dr. Jones' use of the scientific method. Instead of addressing the planes/no-planes issue on its scientific merits, especially the physics of plane crashes, he attacks the researchers. Psychologists refer to this behavior as "projection."
   
   I will also observe that there is a group of 9/11 researchers, including Reynolds, Wood, Haupt and Holmgren, who take the approach of personalized attacks on any other researcher who dares to suggest that real planes hit the Towers. Really — they support the "no-planes-hit-Towers" notion so strongly that they resort to personal attacks on anyone who challenges their pet theory. As I have done. I have been the subject of such attacks for some time now.
   The debate on the "no-planes-hit-Towers" notion is explained further in point #2 below where I suggest the solution is for both sides of this "How it was done" issue to write scholarly papers. Both sides have now done so, and they have submitted their respective papers to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, where the papers (following necessary peer-reviews) are to be published side-by-side. Ad Hominem (attacking the person rather than addressing evidences) arguments will not be allowed in such scholarly papers.
   And so we hope to proceed in the realm of civilized, scientific discussion. For now, I find I must point out the unscholarly ad hominems and false arguments being used against me by the "no-planers" Reynolds and Wood.
   
   0. Ad hominems/false accusations in the R&W essay
   
   
   The above is from: Reply to Reynolds and Wood--Part I (Word Document) (PDF) by Steven E. Jones
   
   
   Now, let us compare, "side-by-side."
   
   

   [SIZE=-1]A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories[/SIZE]
   [SIZE=-1]26 October 2006, by Eric Salter[/SIZE]
   [SIZE=-1]Exploding the Airliner Crash Myth[/SIZE]
   [SIZE=-1]27 October 2006, by Morgan Reynolds and Rick Rajter[/SIZE]
   [SIZE=-1]accepted by Jones[/SIZE]
   [SIZE=-1]rejected by Jones[/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=+2]VIII. Aluminum Glows[/SIZE]
[/FONT]

​

1. Steven Jones has stubbornly insisted that aluminum does not glow like iron. Yet aluminum glows just like iron if it is heated to the same temperature at which molten iron glows. Nearly anyone who can heat metals to a high temperature safely can prove this. There is nothing complicated about this. We are at a loss to explain why he is unable to conduct such a controlled experiment to compare the two. In the picture below workers are pouring molten aluminum to make a crankcase for a replica of the Wright Brothers engine. Jones says aluminum looks silvery and does not glow (at all temperatures?). He fails to account for what molten aluminum looks like if heated to the same temperatures as molten iron (1538°C). The workers wear dark face shields, the equivalent of sunglasses, for a reason. The aluminum is white hot and the inside of the pot is completely glowing while the outside is glowing too but isn't nearly as bright.
   
   
   ​

   [SIZE=+1]Figure 1. This is close to pure aluminum.[/SIZE][SIZE=-1](Source: Popular Mechanics)[/SIZE]
   ​
2. In Steven Jones' Berkeley presentation, he said that Judy Wood believes it was molten aluminum pouring out of a window of the South Tower." He knows better.
3. The two photographs below show glowing metal pouring from a furnace. We cannot tell what kinds of metals these are without additional information. Steven Jones cannot either, despite his claim that aluminum is always silvery and does not glow (much). This was proven on Jim Fetzer's radio show August 10, 2006 when Jones was directed to look at one of these pictures. Morgan Reynolds called in to the radio show and asserted the metal was aluminum, perhaps mistakenly. Steven Jones, unsure, played it safe and said it looked "silvery." When he saw the picture, he recognized it as one discussed in the ST911 forum. His behavior demonstrates that he cannot identify the metal when it is glowing this hot by a photograph alone (nor can we).
   
   
   
   
   [SIZE=+1]Figure 2. These molten metals may be aluminum with a mix of slag or iron with a mix of slag or... [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]( Audio of Jones saying, "When it's flowning it looks kind of "silvery," but then goes on to contradict that statement. So, he can't apparently tell what material it is from the color.)[/SIZE][SIZE=-1](Source: metalwebnews) [/SIZE]link​

* Did the same people who named the US invasion of Iraq as "Operation Iraqi Liberation" (OIL) name the Scholars Symposium in Los Angeles?

 

[quandary121]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=+3]A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][SIZE=+1]By[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][SIZE=+1]Judy Wood[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]This page last updated, March 25, 2008 [/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]Note, the alert observer will recognize that this analysis utilizes the conservation of momentum.
(For a review, see here and here and here and here and here.)[/SIZE]​

(Originally posted: April 16, 2005, [FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]January 5, 2006[/FONT])
(An early draft is available at the link in the upper-right corner.)​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][SIZE=+1]Experimental Evidence is the Truth Theory must Mimic.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]Analysis of Collapse Time, for These Cases[/SIZE][/FONT] [SIZE=-1]Case 1.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Free-fall from roof[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Case 2.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"collapse" every 10 floors[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Case 3.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"collapse" every floor[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Case 4.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"collapse" initiated [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]ahead of "collapse" wave[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Seismic Evidence[/SIZE]bottom[SIZE=+2]Introduction[/SIZE] Very shortly after the events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government proclaimed its certitude concerning who the attackers were -- 19 Arabs suicide bombers under the guidance of one Osama bin Laden. What followed in quick succession were ‘authoritative’ pronouncements, through NOVA and a few academicians, about what brought the WTC towers down. This early public authoritative consensus was that the buildings could not withstand the horrific onslaught of the plane crashes and subsequent fires. Since that time questions have arisen about the veracity of the Official Government Theory of the events of 9/11. One area of particular interest has been the issue of the WTC tower “collapses”.
The purpose of this site is to look at that question from a single, simple perspective -- that of the timing of those “collapses”. Absent other forces, gravity alone must have generated them. We will examine whether that was possible, from the perspective of the law of gravity and the visual record.
Note, the alert observer will recognize that this analysis utilizes the conservation of momentum. (For a review, see here and here and here and here and here.)[SIZE=+1]According to the "Official Story," how long did it take the WTC towers to collapse?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][Dr. Wood is not establishing a "collapse" time, but merely comparing the "official" value with an absolute minimum value.] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report states, "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]ten seconds[/SIZE][SIZE=+1], .... The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud." (Chapter 9. html, pdf)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The August Fact Sheet (Answers to Frequently Asked Questions) by NIST states, "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]11 seconds[/SIZE][SIZE=+1] for WTC 1 and approximately [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]9 seconds[/SIZE][SIZE=+1] for WTC 2." (Question #6.)[/SIZE]
The height of the South Tower (WTC2) is 1362 feet, and the height of the North Tower (WTC1) is 1368 feet, which are nearly the same.
Do these values seem reasonable? Let's calculate a few values we can use as a reference.

Other values of interest: (Note, these are only for reference and are not used as the "collapse" time.) Columbia University's Seismology Group recorded seismic events of 10 seconds and 8 seconds in duration, which correspond to the collapses of WTC2 and WTC1, respectively.
[SIZE=-1]Information Based on Seismic Waves recorded at Palisades New York [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Seismology Group, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University[/SIZE]​

Event[SIZE=-1]origin time (EDT) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](hours:minutes:seconds)[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Magnitude[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](equivalent seismic)[/SIZE]Duration[SIZE=-1]Impact 1 at North Tower[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]08:46:26±1[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]0.9[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]12 seconds[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Impact 2 at South Tower[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]09:02:54±2[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]0.7[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]6 seconds[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Collapse 1, South Tower[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]09:59:04±1[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]2.1[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]10 seconds[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Collapse 2, North Tower[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]10:28:31±1[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]2.3[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]8 seconds[/SIZE]For the following, I used the height of WTC1 as 1368 feet and considered each floor to be a height of 12.44 feet.
(1368/110 =12.44 ft/floor). I assumed gravity = 32.2 ft/sec2 or 9.81 m/sec2.
[SIZE=+2]Simplicity[/SIZE]What can you prove with simple models of an enormously complex situation?
Let's say I tell you that I ran, by foot,
to a store (10 miles away), then
to the bank (5 more miles), then
to the dog track (7 more miles), then
to my friend's house (21 more miles), then home ...all in 2 minutes.
To disprove your story, you could present to you a simple case. I would present to you that the world's record for running just one mile is 3:43.13, or just under four minutes. So, it does not seem possible that I could have run over 40 miles in 2 minutes. i.e. It does not seem possible for me to have run 43 miles in half the time it would take the holder of the world's record to run just one mile. Even if you gave me the benefit of having run all 43 miles at world-record pace, it would not have been possible for me to have covered that distance in two minutes.
Remember, the proof need not be complicated. You don't need to prove exactly how long it should have taken me to run that distance. Nor do you need to prove how much longer it would have taken if I stopped to place a bet at the dog track. To disprove my story, you only need to show that the story I gave you is not physically possible.
Now, let us consider if any of those collapse times provided to us seem possible with the story we were given.
[SIZE=+2]Case 1: [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Free-fall time of a billiard ball dropped from the roof of WTC1, in a vacuum [/SIZE] [SIZE=-4]Top[/SIZE]
Let's consider the minimum time it would take the blue billiard ball to hit the pavement, more than 1/4 mile below (see below). Start the timer when the ball is dropped from the roof of WTC1. We'll assume this is in a vacuum, with no air resistance. (Note, large chunks of the building will have a very low surface area-to-mass ratio, so air resistance can be neglected.) From the rooftop of WTC1, drop one (dark-blue) billiard ball over the edge. As it falls, it accelerates. If it were in a vacuum, it would hit the pavement, 1368 feet below, in 9.22 seconds, shown by the blue curve in the figure, below. It will take longer if air resistance is considered, but for simplicity, we'll neglect air resistance. This means that the calculated collapse times are more generous to the official story than they need to be.
(Click on image to enlarge.)
Figure 1. Minimum Time for a Billiard Ball dropped from the roof of WTC1 to hit the pavement below, assuming no air resistance.

Notice that the billiard ball begins to drop very slowly, then accelerates with the pull of gravity. If in a vacuum, the blue ball will hit the pavement, 1368 ft. below, 9.22 seconds after it is dropped. That is, unless it is propelled by explosives, it will take at least 9.22 seconds to reach the ground (assuming no air resistance).

[SIZE=-4]Top[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=+2]Let's consider the "Pancake Theory"[/SIZE]According to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. In the case of both WTC towers, we didn't see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event. (see pictures below) So, clearly we cannot assume that the floors stacked up like pancakes. Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either.[Trumpman][Hoffman] But, for the sake of evaluating the "collapse" time, we'll assume there was. After all, millions of people believe they saw the buildings "collapse."

Model AModel B(a): The floors remain intact and pile up like a stack of pancakes, from the top down. (b): The floors blow up like an erupting volcano from the top down

(c): Note that the top "block" begins to disintegrate
before the damaged zone starts to move downward.​

[SIZE=-1]Video clip courtesy of 911review.org[/SIZE]​

Figure 2: Possibilities to consider for modeling the collapse.​

[SIZE=+1]Which of the two models, above, best matches the images below?[/SIZE] [SIZE=-4]Top[/SIZE] (a) WTC2, demonstrating there is little to no free-fall debris ahead of the "collapse wave,"(b) layer of uniform dust left by the "collapse."Figure 3: Images from the "collapse."

If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, there will be pancaking or pulverization, but not both. For one thing, that energy can only be spent once. If the potential energy is used to pulverize a floor upward and outward, it can't also be used to accelerate the building downward. In order to have pancaking, a force is required to trigger the failure of the next floor. If the building above that floor has been pulverized, there can be no force pushing down. As observed in the pictures below, much of the material has been ejected upward and outward. Any pulverized material remaining over the footprint of the building will be suspended in the air and can't contribute to a downward force slamming onto the next floor. With pulverization, the small particles have a much larger surface-area-to-mass ratio and air resistance becomes significant. As we can recall, the dust took many days to settle out of the air, not hours or minutes. So, even though the mechanism to trigger the "pancaking" of each floor seems to elude us, let's consider the time we would expect for such a collapse.

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)Figure 4. Images illustrating what really happened that day.To illustrate the timing for this domino effect, we will use a sequence of falling billiard balls, where each billiard ball triggers the release of the next billiard ball in the sequence. This is analogous to assuming pulverization is instantaneous and does not slow down the process. In reality, this pulverization would slow down the "pancake" progression, so longer times would be expected. Thus, if anything, this means the calculated collapse times are more generous to the official story than they need to be.

[SIZE=-4]Top[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Case 2: [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]‘Progressive Collapse’ in ten-floor intervals[/SIZE]To account for the damaged zone, let’s simulate the floor beams collapsing every 10th floor, as if something has destroyed 9 out of every 10 floors for the entire height of the building. This assumes there is no resistance within each 10-floor interval. i.e. We use the conservative approach that there is no resistance between floor impacts. In reality there is, which would slow the collapse time further. Also, there was only damage in one 10-floor interval, not the entire height of the building. Thus, if anything, this means the calculated collapse times are more generous to the official story than they need to be. Refer to the figure below. The clock starts when the blue ball is dropped from the roof (110th floor). Just as the blue ball passes the 100th floor, the red ball drops from the 100th floor. When the red ball passes the 90th floor, the orange ball drops from the 90th floor, ... etc. Notice that the red ball (at floor 100) cannot begin moving until the blue ball reaches that level, which is 2.8 seconds after the blue ball begins to drop.
This approximates the "pancaking" theory, assuming that each floor within the "pancaking" (collapsing) interval provides no resistance at all. With this theory, no floor below the "pancake" can begin to move until the progressive collapse has reached that level. For example, there is no reason for the 20th floor to suddenly collapse before it is damaged.
With this model, a minimum of 30.6 seconds is required for the roof to hit the ground. Of course it would take longer if accounting for air resistance. It would take longer if accounting for the structure's resistance that allows pulverization. The columns at each level would be expected to absorb a great deal of the energy of the falling floors. Thus, if anything, this means the calculated collapse times are more generous to the official story than they need to be.

(Click on image to enlarge.)
Figure 5. Minimum time for the collapse, if nine of every ten floors have been demolished prior to the "collapse."

​

[SIZE=-4]Top[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=+2]Case 3: [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]‘Progressive Collapse’ in one-floor intervals[/SIZE]Similar to Case 2, above, let's consider a floor-by-floor progressive collapse.
Refer to the figure belowClick on image to enlarge.)
Figure 6. Minimum time for the collapse, if every floor collapsed like dominos.


​

[SIZE=-4]Top[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=+2]Case 4: [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]‘Progressive Collapse’ at near free-fall speed[/SIZE]Now, consider the chart below. (Click on image to enlarge.)
Figure 7. Minimum Time for a Billiard Ball dropped from the roof of WTC1 to hit the pavement below, assuming no air resistance.

Let's say that we want to bring down the entire building in the time it takes for free-fall of the top floor of WTC1. (Use 9.22 seconds as the time it would take the blue ball to drop from the roof to the street below, in a vacuum.) So, If the entire building is to be on the ground in 9.22 seconds, the floors below the "pancaking" must start moving before the "pancaking" ("progressive collapse”) reaches that floor, below. To illustrate this, use the concept of the billiard balls. If the red ball (dropped from the 100th floor) is to reach the ground at the same time as the blue ball (dropped from the 110th floor), the red ball must be dropped 0.429 seconds after the blue ball is dropped. But, the blue ball will take 2.8 seconds after it is dropped, just to reach the 100th floor in free fall. So, the red ball needs to begin moving 2.4 seconds before the blue ball arrives to "trigger" the red ball's motion. That is, each of these floors will need a 2.4 second head start for falling -- before the "free falling" floor is triggered to drop. But this also creates yet another problem: "the resistance paradox."[] How can the upper floor be destroyed by slamming into a lower floor if the lower floor has already moved out of the way? Case 2, above, shows the red ball being dropped just as the blue ball passes that point.
Remember, I'm assuming the building was turning to dust as the collapse progressed, which is essentially what happened.
So, for the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone. Did we see this? I believe it's pretty clear in some of the videos. The "wave" of collapse, progressing down the building, is moving faster than free-fall speed. This would require something like a detonation sequence.
Realizing that, for example, the 40th floor needs to start moving before any of the upper floors have "free-fallen" to that point, why would it start moving? There was no fire there. And, if anything, there is less load on that floor as the upper floors turn to dust.
In the picture (at right), notice that WTC2 is less than half of its original height, yet has no debris that has fallen ahead of the demolition wave.

Figure 8. WTC2, demonstrating there is little to no free-fall debris ahead of the "collapse wave."
[SIZE=-4]Top[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]So, how could the ground rumble for only 8 seconds while WTC1 "disappeared?"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]I don't think this part of the building made a thud when it hit the ground.[/SIZE] Figure 9. Dust from "collapse."

This part of the building surely took a lot longer to hit the ground as dust than it would have if it came down as larger pieces of material. We know that sheets of paper have a very high surface-area-to-mass ratio and will stay aloft for long periods of time, which is why paper is an excellent material for making toy airplanes. The alert observer will notice that much of the paper is covered with dust, indicating that this dust reached the ground after the paper did. In the above picture, there are a few tire tracks through the dust, but not many, so it was probably taken shortly after one (or both) of the towers were down. Also, the people in the picture look like they've just come out of hiding, curious to see what just happened and to take pictures. If there had been a strong wind blowing the dust around, it would blow the paper away before it would have blown the dust onto the paper. So, the fact that much of the randomly-oriented paper is covered with dust indicates the relative aerodynamic properties of this dust. Also, notice the dark sky as well as the haze in the distance. This was a clear day with no clouds in the sky... except for the dust clouds. This overcast appearance as well as the distant haze can only be explained by dust from the "collapse" that is still suspended in the air.
In a conventional controlled-demolition, a building's supports are knocked out and the building is broken up as it slams to the ground. In a conventional controlled-demolition, gravity is used to break up the building. Here, it seems that the only use of gravity was to get the dust out of the air.
[SIZE=+2]Conclusion:[/SIZE]
In conclusion, the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible. A new investigation is needed to determine the true cause of what happened to these buildings on September 11, 2001. The destruction of all seven WTC buildings and especially WTC1 and WTC2 may be considered the greatest engineering disaster in the history of the world and deserves a thorough investigation.





[SIZE=-4]Top[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Jesse Ventura on 9/11 with Alex Jones 2008[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Part 1 of 3[/SIZE]​

(7:59) URL
(1:14 - 3:36) Jesse Ventura describes the various BBE cases. Impressive! Jessee Ventura nicely relayed the concepts presented above.
Note, the motion must restart after each floor because all kinetic energy has been consumed by failing the supports for each floor as well as pulverizing each floor. There wouldn't even be enough energy to do either, but assuming there had been enough energy, a time is calculated.
​

​

[SIZE=-4]Top[/SIZE]
References 1. 9/11 Commission Report
2. Page 305, 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 9., html, pdf
3. The height of the South Tower (WTC2) is 1362 feet, and the height of the North Tower (WTC1) is 1368 feet.
4. Seismology Group, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
5. Wayne Trumpman (September 2005)
6. Jim Hoffman
7. D.P. Grimmer, June 20, 2004
8. Fact Sheet (Answers to Frequently Asked Questions) by NIST
9. Jeff Strahl and/or Dave Heller, "The Resistence Paradox"

 

[Colpy]

Pancake Collapes Of The Twin Towers Would Lose Speed.!!! Not Gain Speed .!!!the Speed In Which The Towers Fell Were Between 8-9 Seconds For Both Towers.! If The Pancake Theory Were Correct, This Would Have Taken It To At Least 96 Seconds To Collapes Due To The Resistance Of The Floors And Such Like Also Where Is The Central Core If The Metal Were Fatigued By The Heat ?

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

Where did you get the 96 second figure?

 

[quandary121]

[SIZE=+2]REQUESTS FOR CORRECTION OF NIST REPORT ON DESTRUCTION OF WORLD TRADE CENTER FILED
[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
FRAUD AND DECEPTION CITED AS REASONS FOR CORRECTION REQUEST[/SIZE]


[SIZE=+1]March 22, 2007[/SIZE]


CONTACT: Dr. Judy Wood or Attorney Jerry Leaphart 203-825-6265

For Immediate Release: Basic Facts:

A Request for Correction (RFC) submitted under the Data Quality Act (DQA) was filed with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on March 16, 2007

NIST acknowledged receipt of RFC in writing on March 19, 2007, via its Acting Chief of Management and Organization Division, Stephen Willett.

RFC challenges the integrity of NIST document NCSTAR 1 (National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee), Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, issued in September 2005

See www.wtc.nist.gov

A full copy of the RFC filed by DR. Wood can be viewed at

http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html


Dr. Judy Wood (with degrees in Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science), widely acknowledged as the leading proponent of the theory that Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) were used to destroy the World Trade Center (WTC) complex, has filed a Request for Correction under the Data Quality Act with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), located in Gaithersburg, MD.

Dr. Wood is represented in this effort by Attorney Jerry Leaphart, a Connecticut-based trial lawyer, who states that NIST now has 60 days to respond to the RFC. After that, an appeal can be taken and/or other legal action may then follow.

Leaphart further states that Dr. Wood knows that the implications of her theory that DEW were used to destroy the WTC complex shatter certain key beliefs that Americans as a whole cherish and hold dear. Her theory has generated a lot of interest and commentary within the 9/11 Truth Movement that relies primarily upon the Internet as its media source. Mainstream print and broadcast media do not cover the 9/11 Truth Movement, but may need to take heed of this administrative action filed by Dr. Wood, according to Attorney Leaphart.

Leaphart said that to his knowledge, only three RFCs concerning NIST's WTC report have been filed to date. One by Dr. Morgan Reynolds, another by Edward F. Haas and the one filed by Dr. Wood. All three are currently pending.

The 43 page RFC filed by Wood asserts that the basic integrity of NCSTAR 1 is lacking because, by its own admission, it did not investigate the actual destruction of the World Trade Center Towers.

NCSTAR 1 admits:

"The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." [See NCSTAR 1, pgs xxxvii, footnote 2 and/or 82, footnote 13]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]E.1 Genesis of this investigation[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]p. xxxv-xxxvi (pp. 37-38): "The specific objectives were:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed; ..."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]E.2 Approach[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]p. xxxvii (p. 39) footnote2 "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.[/FONT]​

Thus, to this day, Americans have not been given any explanation whatsoever for the destruction of the WTC complex that comports with information and quality standards.

In contrast, Dr. Wood's RFC contains a stunning array of visual evidence confirming highly unusual energy effects seen by all as the twin towers were almost instantaneously destroyed in less time than it would take a billiard ball to hit the ground if dropped from the height of the twin towers.

That fact is assessed on the basis of the two other laws of physics in Wood's RFC, thus confirming its scientific rigor. Wood also points to other compelling evidence that NIST ignored. Wood's RFC shows visual evidence of unusual and unexplained blast effects on vehicles parked blocks away from the complex. Wood also demonstrates unexplained visual damage in the form of perpendicular gouges in WTC 3, and WTC 4,5,6 and the near disappearance of WTC 3, all of which remain unexplained by NIST to this day. Wood goes further and points out that the incredible amount of dust resulting from the visible process of steel disintegrating before our very eyes all point to the use of directed energy weapons. One other element of Wood's proof is the almost complete lack of even a rubble pile at the WTC complex. Wood asks: Where did it go?

Added to all of that is the fact that whatever the energy and heat source was, it had no effect upon paper that was seen floating everywhere and not burning very much, if at all.

Dr. Wood's RFC demonstrates all of the above mentioned effects in its 43 pages of text and pictorial proof. The combined effects of gravity, jet fuel (a form of kerosene) and plane damage could not possibly have caused the massive destruction that occurred on September 11, 2001, in New York City, according to Dr. Wood. The wonder of it all is that more engineers and scientists have not come forward to challenge the woeful, scientific inadequacies of the official explanation.

Dr. Wood invites her peers and colleagues to set aside their emotional attachments and to view the evidence objectively. Then and only then can America come to grips with what happened on 9/11/01, according to Dr. Wood.

 

[Colpy]

So, what you are saying is that the imaginary demolition crew, which would have taken 30,000 hours at least to plant the 2700 lbs of explosives on the beam structure necessary to daintily collapse the buildings, actually planted the tons and tons of explosives necessary to blow the concrete shell of the building to smithereens.

Without anyone noticing.

Linear thought ain't exactly your strong suit, is it?

 

[quandary121]

Disturbed about the content and quality of physicist Steven E. Jones' 9/11 work, Drs. Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood conducted a peer-review. This review covers ten major issues which include demolition of WTC 7, demolitions of WTC 1&2, evidence for high-energy explosives, thermite, glowing aluminum, No Big Boeing Theory (NBB) and other issues. In the "truth movement," it is vital that we police our own. If we don't, the defenders of the OGCT certainlly will. You can be sure that it will get mighty ugly when defenders of the OGCT find major errors. This is the purpose for having research peer reviewed.
[SIZE=+1]I. Introduction[/SIZE]
Four years after the event, a Brigham Young University physics professor, Steven E. Jones, suggested that the destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers was not caused by impact damage and associated fires but by pre-positioned explosives. Jones’ paper caused a stir because of his credentials and apparent expertise in physics, mechanics and chemistry. Jones is the only full professor in physics at a major university who has publicly expressed skepticism about the official 9/11 story. Jones’ background includes research in the controversial area of "cold fusion," but his work in muon-catalyzed fusion did not seem to produce any significant energy and hence proved a dead end, in contrast to the promising electrochemically-induced process.

Figure 1: Professor Steven E. Jones in his office.Within weeks of Jones’ arrival on the 9/11 scene Dr. Jim Fetzer, a philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, founded a new organization? Scholars for 9/11 Truth?and invited Jones to become co-chair, effectively second in "command." The society grew rapidly to 300 members and Fetzer and Jones made notable strides in publicizing shortcomings in the official 9/11 story. Steven Jones’ star continues to rise: "Now he [Steven E. Jones] is the best hope of a movement that seeks to convince the rest of America that elements of the government are guilty of mass murder on their own soil," writes John Gravois in the Chronicle of Higher Education, June 23, 2006. Canadian chemist Frank R. Greening says members of the 9/11 conspiracy community "practically worship the ground (Jones) walks on because he’s seen as a scientist who is preaching to their side."
Among other activities, Jones initially was responsible for the scholars’ discussion forum and he and Judy Wood instituted a "peer-reviewed" Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones appointed the advisory editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the "peers" to review manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign.
The steep ascendant of one scientist puts many of the 9/11truth movement’s eggs in one basket. The question is, are we being set up for a fall? The time for applauding Jones’ stepping forward has passed. Events force us to take a hard look at Jones’ growing influence on 9/11 research.
[SIZE=+1]II. Overview[/SIZE]
Collectively we are engaged in a struggle to expose the government’s lies about 9/11. The physical sciences and analysis are key to this project. The only investigation worthy of the name has been conducted on the internet by researchers like Thierry Meyssan, Gerard Holmgren, Jeff King, Rosalee Grable, Kee Dewdney, Nico Haupt, Killtown, and "Spooked" who proved no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon, flight 93 did not crash in the designated hole near Shanksville, PA, and the WTC towers were demolished by explosives.
Unfortunately, Jones fails to credit this body of research. More importantly,

• • Jones’ work is deficient as shown below
  • Its overall thrust is to rehabilitate portions of the Official Government Conspiracy Theory (OGCT).

More specifically, we assert:

• Demolition at the WTC was proven fact long before Jones came along, but he initially said that it is "…a hypothesis to be tested. That’s a big difference from a conclusion…" His subsequent concentration on issues like steel-cutting thermite and experiments with newly-discovered materials from unofficial sources allegedly from the WTC site have undermined confidence in demolition.
• That no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon was proven years ago but Jones suggests it is unproven because the Scholars are split on it, though truth is hardly a matter to be democratically decided.
• Jones ignores the enormous energy releases at the twin towers apparently because his favorite theory, thermite and its variants, cannot account for data like nearly complete transformation of concrete into fine dust. Instead, in a blinkered fashion Jones narrows the issue to thermite versus mini-nuke (fission bomb) and predictably finds no evidence for a mini-nuke.

Figure 2: Mostly unburned paper mixes with the top half of the Twin Towers. As seen a block away, a large portion of the towers remains suspended in air.

• Jones neglects laws of physics and physical evidence regarding impossible WTC big plane crashes in favor of curt dismissal of the no-big-boeing-theory (NBB). He relies on "soft" evidence like videos, eyewitnesses, planted evidence and unverified black boxes. When others challenge how aluminum wide-body Boeings can fly through steel-concrete walls, floors and core without losing a part, Jones does not turn to physics for refutation but continues to cite eyewitnesses and videos, thereby backing the OGCT.

Figure 3(a): Husky, beefy beams.

Figure 3(b): Loss of a chunk (sizable section) out of this tower would be inconsequential.Figure 3(c): If the tower is viewed as a "towering tree" and the Keebler Elves carved out a residence, no measurable weakening would occur. If their cookie oven set fire to the tree, it would be inconsequential.On 9/11 issues where the case is proven and settled, Jones confounds it. On controversies with arguments and evidence on both sides like NBB, he conducts no physical analysis and sides with OGCT. The world asks, what energy source could have transformed 200,000 tons of steel-reinforced concrete into ultra-fine particles within seconds, suspended in the upper atmosphere for days while leaving paper unharmed, hurling straight sticks of steel hundreds of feet, incinerating cars and trucks for blocks, and leaving nary a desk, computer, file cabinet, bookcase or couch on the ground? Jones seems to reply, "Superthermite."

Figure 4(a): Unexplained spontaneous combustion toasted cars in a lot near the WTC. Figure 4(b): Peculiar wilting of car doors and deformed window surrounds on FDR Drive.Figure 4(c): Blistered car with unburned upholstery and unburned plastic window molding. Figure 4(d): Front half of a car burned with an unburned rear half.Figure 4(e): What burned and dragged these cars and mangled the left rear wheel? Figure 4(f): What was this object across the street? What caused that line of burn marks on the hood of the car in the foreground?

 

[quandary121]

[SIZE=+1]III. WTC Demolition[/SIZE]

The demolitions of WTC 1, 2 and 7 were different yet Jones treats them implicitly as if they are alike. The perpetrators essentially destroyed WTC 7 from the bottom up in a gravity-assisted collapse, while WTC 1 and 2 were primarily top-down, virtually unassisted by gravity and destroyed by a combination of conventional and unconventional devices. Jones points to conventional demolitions which leave clean-up crews with only short piles of rubble and remarks, "As observed for WTC 7, also WTC 1 and 2?the Twin Towers?on 9-11-01" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 16].", as if all demolitions are alike and have short stacks. The perpetrators could not order an off-the-rack demolition from aisle 7B to cleanly take down one-quarter-mile tall towers each containing approximately 100 acres of interior space.

Figure 5(a): Failed demolition in South Dakota. (mov) (wmv)​

[SIZE=-1]source-mov, source-wmv[/SIZE]​

Figure 5(b): Demolition gone bad: the leaning tower of South Dakota fails to collapse any further. (mov) (wmv)​

[SIZE=-1]source-mov, source-wmv[/SIZE]​

Figure 5(c): Demolition starts bad: the top 300 feet of WTC 2 tilted as much as 23° before being blown to kingdom come.Figure 5(d): No one had ever attempted to demolish a building nearly the size of a twin tower, and smoke from WTC 1 helped to distract and cover up problems in destroying WTC 2.

Figure 5(e): WTC 1 smoke obscures WTC 2 demolition.The scrap guys could not believe the twin towers had so little rubble. "It simply did not seem possible that two of the world’s tallest buildings had all but disappeared…In total, 2,700 vertical feet of building, containing nearly 10 million square feet of floor space, were reduced to a tangled, smoking, burning heap less than 200 feet thick."

Figure 6(a): Ground zero rubble was surprisingly small.

Figure 6(b): The rubble was not deep enough to reach the undercarriage of the black Cushman scooter in the foreground and the flag poles in the background look full height.

Figure 6(c) Where did the quarter-mile-high buildings go?​

Figure 6(d) Video of WTC2's demise

Figure 6(e): Ground zero looks bombed out because it was. Little of the buildings remain and many husky, beefy beams (Figure 3 above) are gone. There was surprisingly little collateral damage to nearby buildings.


Figure 6(f): An earthquake-induced collapse in Pakistan suggests how much rubble and how little dust should have been at Ground Zero if the government’s gravitational collapse story were true. Figure 6(g): Another view of the same earthquake-induced collapse in Pakistan. Note there is no dust in the air, validated by the clarity of the shadows. Figure 7(a): Nuclear blast in Nevada. Figure 7(b): The cauliflower top looks familiar.
Listen to the Ace Baker's documentary song, "Blown to Kingdom Come." Figure 7(c): The cauliflower top looks familiar here, too. (Mount Saint Helens) "[A good option] is to detonate the columns so that the building’s sides fall inward," Jones writes, "…all of the rubble collects at the center of the building"[pdf (7/19/06) p. 19].". Jones seems untroubled by the meager rubble from the massive cores. If all the steel had fallen to ground zero, it would have formed a steel block at each tower base approximately 200’x200’x10.2’ high. If all the concrete had fallen to ground zero, it would have formed a block at each tower base 200’x200’x56.1’ high. Together they would total 66.3 feet tall of pure steel and concrete or over five stories with no air or other debris. This calculation takes no account of over 1,000,000 square feet of aluminum cladding, 600,000 square feet of thick window glass, machinery (including 200 elevators in each tower), wall board, ceiling material, water and water systems, a few million miles of wiring, office equipment and furniture, etc.
Jones poses a revealing question-and-answer:
Q: "What data finally convinced you that 9/11 was not just by 19 hijackers?
A: Molten metal, yellow-hot and in large quantities…" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 45]
This statement raises two problems: first, Jones gives credence to the loony OGCT that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" were involved or caused 9/11. It makes no sense to embrace parts of the government’s unproven story without independent proof. If a scientist falsifies his data, his career is over. Why not the same standard for government liars? Second, with so many compelling facts like near free-fall speed, symmetric disintegration in their own footprints, almost no concrete left, and many others, it is folly to rely on molten metal as the strongest evidence for demolition, especially flowing from windows in manipulated videos. In downgrading the importance of free-fall speed Jones wrote on July 2, 2006,"…there are stronger arguments at this time than those which rely on the time-of-fall of the Towers. We're still working on those calculations…stronger arguments are growing, IMO." There is no stronger argument for demolition than near-free-fall speed.

Figure 8: This figure forms part of the proof that 110 floors can only hit the ground within 10 seconds if lower floors fall before upper floors reach them. For more, see the billiard ball example.

Figure 9: The tower is being pealed downward. Dark explosions shoot up, while white ones explode outward. Above the white explosions the building has vanished while the lower part awaits termination.Jones states he was unconvinced about 9/11 demolitions until he learned about yellow-hot molten metal Jones [pdf (7/19/06) p. 45] yet last fall emphasized speed, symmetry and sequence of puffs or squibs at WTC 7 as evidence for demolition. It was not until mid-February 2006 that he discussed yellow-hot metal pouring out of a WTC 2 window. Our fear is that concentration on molten metal is a distraction and a path to a destination most people do not want to go. There are many ways to cut steel and the exact method is not all that important. Thermite cannot pulverize an entire building and make molten metal burn for 100 days. Something far more powerful was used and Jones avoids the question.
[SIZE=+1]IV. Thermite and Glowing Liquid Aluminum[/SIZE]
Over a year before Jones appeared, Derrick Grimmer, a Ph.D. physicist from Washington University-St. Louis and member of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE), posted a scientific article about possible use of thermite to melt sections of the WTC core. Jones does not cite this work but begins with the WTC study by the government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and its videos and pictures of liquid metal pouring from a window of the WTC 2. Jones does not challenge these data though they appear to violate the laws of physics. Where would heat sufficient to melt "huge" quantities of metal come from, allow it to collect in large reservoirs and pour along unspecified (irrigation) channel(s)? And how could thermite, which is little more than a cutting torch, melt mass quantities of metal [see Figure 14(b) and (c)]. After a confrontation, Jones admitted that Andrew Johnson spliced the videotape but they fail to tell us what was spliced to what and why and what the effect is. NIST claims the pictures and videos were from Reuters and WABC-TV but are they real? They look fake. Who took the pictures? What was the chain of custody? Is there evidence of photoshopping?
NIST acknowledges it "adjusted" the intensity of the photos somehow, so they were already doctored. Perhaps it was real phenomena but we strongly doubt it because

• No heat source is specified
• The liquid inexplicably appears to flow from a window rather than the floor and there is no explanation for what surface would support the flow
• The flow changes windows
• The aluminum cladding on the exterior displays no signs of heat or melting despite the fact that iron begins to melt at 1538° C and aluminum alloys begin to melt at temperatures under 660° C
• The flow disappears prior to destruction of WTC 2 as the video jumps.

Figure 10(a):NIST reports: "The intensity levels have been adjusted…" NIST does not say if the adjustment was uniform, confined to a particular window or what. The images have been tampered with and therefore are useless as data to scientists. Figure 10(b): Jones’ edited version of the photo ignores the NIST alert that "the intensity levels have been adjusted." He has also used spliced videotapes without identifying they were tampered with.Figure 10(c): The alleged flow appears in a different window.We cannot explain how molten metal would pour from a window ledge and then move and pour from another window ledge, although NIST claims the flow performed such a feat within seven minutes of collapse. We need answers to these questions before we become convinced that the event was real and therefore deserves analysis.
Jones claims that the pictured flow cannot be aluminum because, "Molten aluminum in daylight conditions (like 9-11 WTC) is silvery-straw-gray at all temperatures"[pdf (7/19/06) p. 50]. Laboratory demonstrations in late February 2006 by Wood and Zebuhr (1980-2006) cast serious doubt on Jones’ contention. Jones’ table on[pdf (7/19/06) p. 63]." even documents the various colors of aluminum as temperatures increase. All metals, including aluminum, glow as temperatures rise. The exact appearance depends on the mix of impurities like oil and oxidation in the metal yet Jones argues,
"…the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal. (A notable exception is falling liquid aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, after falling through air one to two meters, regardless of the temperature at which the poured-out aluminum left the vessel. Aluminum does incandesce like other metals, but faintly so that the conditions in the previous sentence falling [sic] liquid aluminum will appear silvery-gray according to experiments at BYU [Jones references himself])." We have no explanation for why Jones would insist, contrary to evidence outside BYU, that flowing aluminum does not glow at high temperatures in daylight conditions. This color chartshows that all pure metals are the same color at each temperature.

Figure 11(a): Jones' Temperature Chart
[SIZE=-1][Source1] [Source2][/SIZE]Figure 11(b): Temperature Chart [SIZE=-1][[/SIZE]Source[SIZE=-1]][/SIZE]At 600°C Al has a minimal glow as all metals do. An electric stove burner, for example, barely glows at that temperature and you may have to turn off the lights to see it.
Professor Jones uses the copyright photo below to support his claim that Al has no glow under daylight conditions. Yet this picture is not proof because there is no confirmation of what is being poured and at what temperature. Aluminum begins to melt at 660°C and has low emissivity, as iron does, and this picture just shows something being poured. The bucket or mold may be iron or steel, but they not glowing. If they are cold, the lack of visible reaction in the form of steam or sizzle must be explained.

Figure 12(a): Jones uses this picture. [source]Figure 12(b): Apples and oranges compared, as text below explains. [pdf (8/15/06) p. 69]

Figure 12(c): This picture appears to have been taken indoors, in a dark room. If that is "daylight" outside the window, it clearly is not shining in through the window as there are no shadows. In addition, the pot in this picture is more out of focus than anything else in the picture, which would imply a slow shutter speed. It appears that the technician is shaking the pot in an effort to get the aluminum out of it. Fast shutter speeds are used in bright daylight. If the motion of the pot is captured on camera, can this really be considered to be "in daylight conditions?" If the anomaly observed in the pictures of the south tower is even a real phenomenon and if it is iron, Jones’ favored interpretation, it must be above 1538°C. To rule out molten aluminum in these south tower pictures,aluminum would have to be heated above 1538°C for a valid comparison. Here is an analogy: who would conclude that a liquid at 25°C (room temperature) cannot possibly be water because we all know H2O is a solid at -5°C? No one. Or, is Steven Jones going to rule out "water" as the liquid because "water" is a solid at -5°C?

(a) Water at -10 to 0°C
[SIZE=-2]2006 Olympic Trials[/SIZE](b) Some liquid at 25°C
[SIZE=-2]Source[/SIZE]Figure 13: (a) Speedskaters stand on solid water and (b) a glass of a clear liquid at 25°C (room temperature)

Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges, one metal to another under the same conditions. In the case of an aluminum alloy, it only takes about 600°C to become liquid. We can see that the aluminum pictured at BYU is nowhere near 1538°C because it is solid, it is not flowing, the container and its handle do not glow and flimsy gloves offer plenty of protection. Notice the steam coming off the pot that we do not see in Figure 12(a).

Aluminum does not remain "silvery" at elevated temperatures.
Note that the emissivity of Aluminum increases with temperature.​

Figure 13(c): Aluminum alloy at 580-650°C
[SIZE=-2]Backyard Metalcasting.com[/SIZE]Figure 13(d): Aluminum at ~1000°C
[SIZE=-3]International Aluminium Institute[/SIZE]Figure 13(e): Aluminum at ca. 1500°C
[SIZE=-2]Popular Mechanics[/SIZE]


Figure 13(f): 99.7% pure aluminum at approximately 1,000° C (Wood/Zebuhr). Figure 13(g): Aluminum and its tungsten boat glow approximately the same, illustrating that the two metals possess similar emissivity (Wood/Zebuhr). Tungsten glows in daylight conditions (turn on your porchlight at noon) and is used in light bulbs because of its high emissivity. Al converges on tungsten’s emissivity at high temperatures. There is no reason to eliminate aluminum as the liquid flowing from the south tower based on alleged differences in emissivity among Al, W, Fe at temperatures of 1500°C and higher.Thermite plays a major role in Jones’ work on the demolitions. He concludes that his thermite evidence points exclusively to its use in WTC demolitions based on the testimony of lawyer Robert Moore and 9/11 activist Michael Berger plus his own reasoning that "thermite ejects globs of molten white-hot iron" and is too dangerous to work with. Jones believes that clean up crews at WTC did not use thermite. Yet these pictures from Ground Zero suggest room for doubt. In the tangle of the WTC mess, thermite would be useful to cut steel under conditions of poor accessibility. Nor is thermite as dangerous as Jones suggests. Jones has even used a video of college kids playing with thermite. (wmv) (YouTube)

Figure 14(a), (b), (c): Maybe thermite was used in the Ground Zero clean up.What about nanoaluminum for cutting steel? Jones calls it "superthermite" and jumps to the conclusion that it caused the molten metal pools burning 99 days without eliminating competing hypotheses. There is no proof that thermite could cause such long-lived, intense fires. Jones and others might conduct experiments to prove otherwise, but we doubt such a result can happen. "Such molten-metal pools never before seen…with controlled demolitions which did not use thermite, nor with building fires, nor with thermal lances," writes Jones, "Huge quantities of the stuff." Jones asserts "that much thermite was used to bring the buildings down" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 62]." but if proven wrong, there is little or no fallback position. Placing all eggs in a thermite carton may lead to slim breakfasts down the road.
Another issue is how the perpetrators could deploy and control the necessary thermite. With 236 perimeter columns and 47 core columns and 110 floors to cut loose in each tower, it might take 31,000 large thermite deposits/canisters igniting in a computerized sequence to bring each tower down. Even if thermite was placed on alternate floors, that would be 15,500 charges in each tower. Then there is the problem of sufficient radio frequencies with 220 floors, each with its own set of frequencies. Professor Jones might give these scenarios some thought.
Professor Jones reports that he has analyzed a piece of solidified metal slag from WTC. He provides no documentation of the source or evidence regarding the chain of custody. He concludes that the presence of manganese, sulfur and fluorine suggest a "thermite fingerprint" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 77].". Perhaps he is right but there is no independent corroboration. Can outsiders test the slag? Jones has proved nothing. Demolition is corroborated, proven and undoubtedly involved steel cutters to insure swift collapse of the lower structure, but the cutters were not necessarily thermite. Without proof, thermite advocates put themselves out on a limb.

[SIZE=+1]V. High Energy Devices[/SIZE]
Thermite is a non-starter to account for phenomena (see 911eyewitness) like these:

1. 1. Disintegration of 99% of concrete into ultra-fine dust (50% of particles under 100 microns in samples from three locations, Dr. Thomas Cahill and his group measured concentrations of particles in ranges from 0.09 to 2.5 microns). 2. Superheated steels ablating?vaporizing continuously as they fall?as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing.This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermate (see Figure 17a below).
   3. The North Tower spire stood for 20-30 seconds, evaporated, went down, and turned to steel dust.

Figure 15: Steel beams turn to steel dust.

Figure 16: The same steel-dust phenomenon from another source.
Figure17(a): A video clip of steel turning to steel dust. (gif) (mov) (avi) (gif)Figure 17(b): Another video of steel turning to steel dust, although CNN’s Aaron Brown calls it smoke.
[Click on image for video, or (mpg) (avi) ]

1. 4. 33-ton section of outer wall columns ripped off side of tower.

Figure 18(a): Large sections of outer wall to the left and somewhat hidden to the right blow off the tower.

Figure 18(b): What scooped out the middle portion of the building across the street from WTC2?

1. 5. Sharp spikes of Richter 2.1 and 2.3 in seismograph readings occurred at the start of both tower collapses. Short duration and high power indicate explosive event, as illustrated by the audio track recorded in Rick Seigel video, 911EYEWITNESS. The abrupt cessation of movement implies no collapse but sudden termination of shifting of debris.

Figure 19: Audio signal stops abruptly, indicating no expected tapering off from a "settling process" in the debris pile. [SIZE=-1]Source: [/SIZE][911eyewitness]

1. 6. Electrical outage over a wide area with repairs taking over three months, suggesting EM pulses. 7. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water and huge rainstorms.
   8. Brown shades of color in the air suggest something odd occurred. Air had pH levels of 12 of a maximum 14. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact according to Rick Siegel, indicating complicity in the cover-up.
   9. Elevated tritium levels measured in the WTC area, according to Siegel, but not elsewhere in New York.
   10. Pyroclastic flow observed in concrete-based clouds must have resulted from explosives, not thermite. Huge expanding dust clouds multiples times the volume of the building, indicating extreme levels of heat in excess of traditional demolition explosives.
   11. Some rescue workers and 14 rescue dogs died too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins.
   12. Decontamination procedures used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) continuously for all steel removed from site. Constant scrubbing of the site made it look like it was clean enough to eat off of. Officials plainly did not want any outsider to find something.

Figure 20(a): Lower Manhattan was not the only recipient of a hose job.

Figure 20(b): All new cranes quickly on site (ordered in advance?) and lots of scrubbing.

Figure 20(c): New York City makes a clean sweep of it.