See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 911 and Thermite, The official Conspiracy Theory?
Source:
YouTube
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=505uzsWbC30
Published: May 9, 2011
Author: 108morris108
Post Date: 2012-11-23 15:54:13 by GreyLmist
Keywords: 9/11, Andrew Johnson, Steven Jones, Thermites Theory
Views: 1768
Comments: 67
From the Description Section: Thermite does not turn steel to dust. Thermite does create a lot of flames. Each tower weighed 500,000 tons, no-one has seen anything like the quantity of flames that thermite would have created. Many more anomalies too. Burned out vehicles alongside unburnt paper (a lot of it) left intact. [sic] Thermite is simply Aluminium and Iron Oxide, two substances which were in great quantity in the Towers. Poster Comment: Jones' Thermite Theory evidently not published as peer reviewed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 57.
#50. To: GreyLmist (#0)
(Edited)
This guy says you don't need evidence, you just need observation.....sheesh, where did he get his science degree? Say what you like about Jones, but his THEORY is based on evidence at the site: For example: If this guy is to be taken seriously, he needs an ALTERNATE THEORY explaining the evidence presented, not his opinion and observations that IGNORE the central evidence presented in the initial theory. Jones doesn't insist that others accept his THEORY, after all it is merely a THEORY based on the evidence found........but if you want to call bullshit on the THEORY, then offer an acceptable alternative for the evidence presented, such as how does the "energy beam" create molten steal and leave the same chemical compounds as nano termite? How does the "energy beam" theory create the holes in the steal? How does the energy beam create sulfidation? What physical evidence is presented to merit the "energy beam" THEORY...is there a serious scientific theory presented regarding energy beams? Also, does one theory actually discount the other? Is it possible that two theories have merit? Science has many theories that are compatible........
What evidence at the site? His interpretations of photos? Judy Wood has an entire book of that. Jones' supposed "chain of dust and soil evidence" appeared years after 9/11 -- after he wrote his 2006 paper. It is highly suspect and should be declared inadmissable in a court of law. Yes, it is possible that more than one theory has merit but his doesn't, imo. Even he has claimed that thermite/thermate may have been used simply as an incendiary-ignition for more powerful explosives and not to demolish the buildings but even that much about the matter is speculative on his part. Without even referencing Judy Wood, there are news reports and photos of the WTC destruction that indicates much more was involved than thermitics and that's not hypothetical, according to what's been shown. It is actually Jones, Architects and Engineers, et al, who have been arguing an alternate and unscientifically based theory. Reference the discussions at this linked site, where it's critiqued as "pyrotechnic pixie dust". In summary, what Jones and other "authority figures" called "evidence" -- unreacted thermitics -- disproves that it brought down the buildings at all and should be viewed with more skepticism as disinfo than it has been: Comment: "What does that statement really mean? 'Unreacted'… is that kinda like finding a few unfired bullets around a dead body and then claiming that proves [someone] was shot? That is why the law states that finding residual traces of EXPLODED conventional explosives proves demolition… finding unreacted thermite doesn’t PROVE thermite brought the towers down. In fact all it really proves is the 'hundreds and hundreds of tons' of this stuff that Harrit ALSO mentioned in that last video… DID NOT bring down the towers… because it didn’t go off." Another reference for consideration: This is Google's cache of http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx? transcriptid=674. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Nov 22, 2012 20:37:13 GMT: U.S. Department of Defense Cohen's keynote address at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy at the Georgia Center, Mahler Auditorium, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. The event is part of the Sam Nunn Policy Forum being hosted by the University of Georgia. Secretary Cohen is joined by Sen. Sam Nunn and Sen. Richard G. Lugar. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, Edited to correct first link path and for punctuation. Bracketed inserts by me in the excerpts from that link. Edit to note the online book source where the defense.gov info was first read by me: Finding the Truth.pdf - CheckTheEvidence.com; by Andrew Johnson, the speaker in the opening video of this thread.
No Thermite on 9/11?! | Explosives Do NOT Explain the Evidence!
Did you even watch your video? He doesn't dispute that nanothermite was found, he disputes the use. He spends most of the video attacking the publishing and in that last few seconds claims he "doesn't deal with the content of the paper"....publishing claims do not discount CONTENT. Even the title of this video is dishonest: begging the question is a common propaganda technique used when the real questions are avoided.
Yes, I watched the video. If you review the one of Jones at Post #26, I think you might agree that there is no credible evidence of nanothermite. What Jones and the eight other listed co-authors did was chip in about $88.88 a piece for a publication to decieve people about their alleged "findings". The Playlist that I posted (at #26 too) has more commentary on the subject, which I'll post here next. The video I posted at #54 is a re-titled mirror of one that was removed by YouTube and the actual title is: "The Thermite Conspiracy"; which is why those words appear first at the opening of the video. I included a copy of the video in that Playlist with the correct title for it and probably should have posted that one instead but I don't think the title of the one that I posted is a dishonest propaganda technique. Both parts of the title are essentially accurate, imo. On the 2nd section: conventional explosives don't explain the evidence at the WTC -- not even with the thermite-additive hypothesis. I think the first part of the title that asks the question, "No Thermite on 9/11?!", refers to the evasive response by co-author, James Gourley (at the 9:30 mark -- in reply to an imquiry about the concentration level of thermite/thermate), where he says in the first sentence: "we don't know whether nanothermite was used to bring the towers down." He then speculates that it might have been used to keep the fires going long enough to make the fire-induced collapse theory plausible -- and supporting that implausibility was probably the main objective of Jones and the other co-authors. Gourley further speculates that it might have been used in conjunction with high explosives (although they oddly didn't test for demolition-grade explosives), then states that nanothermite matches exist and that he believes they can be used to detonate high explosives. "We really just have no idea how it was used," he says, then concludes with: "The salient point is: it shouldn't be in the WTC dust at all." The real point is: there's no reason to believe it was in the WTC dust, based on the unreliable so-called "evidence samples" that they claim to have used. Even if we suppose that what Jones claims was "molten metal" pouring out of the window(s) at WTC 2 could possibly have been stage-propped thermitics used for "spectacular special effects", it wouldn't prove that it was also used to demolish the Towers if it turned up in a dust or soil sample -- but they didn't even use any valid test-samplings. On your earlier comment about molten iron spheres, arc gougers are called "welding erasers" because they can vaporize metal into tiny spherical shapes too. Edited for clarity and readability.
There are no replies to Comment # 57. End Trace Mode for Comment # 57.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Steven Jones, PhD physicist discovers previously molten iron spheres in the WTC dust which blanketed lower Manhattan. Sizes are up to 1/16" diameter. The findings are corroborated by EPA but not explained. Molten iron is the byproduct of Thermite. It contains the chemical signature of thermate. 
hysics professor Steven Jones finds, in this previously molten sample from the WTC, the chemical traces of Thermate — including Fluorine, Manganese, Sulphur, Potassium, etc. 
The FEMA report notes: "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.... Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation." NIST dropped this like a hot potato. These are all tell tell signs of the use of thermate (sulphur + thermite) incendiary cutter charges." 
Previously molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises. Hydrocarbon fires can burn at a maximum temperature of 1,800°F which is about 1,000° short of the beginning melting temperature of steel. Where did the molten metal come from? Why do FEMA and NIST deny its existence?
#53. To: abraxas, *9-11* (#50)
(Edited)
Say what you like about Jones, but his THEORY is based on evidence at the site
Niels Harrit [a co-author with Jones]: “You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it: unreacted thermite.”
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Transcript
Presenter: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
April 28, 1997 8:45 AM EDT
Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.
#54. To: All, *9-11* (#53)
#55. To: GreyLmist (#54)
#57. To: abraxas (#55)
(Edited)
Did you even watch your video? He doesn't dispute that nanothermite was found, he disputes the use. He spends most of the video attacking the publishing and in that last few seconds claims he "doesn't deal with the content of the paper"....publishing claims do not discount CONTENT. Even the title of this video is dishonest: begging the question is a common propaganda technique used when the real questions are avoided.
Replies to Comment # 57.