No Speculation Required: 9/11 Was an Inside Job

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” - Thomas Pynchon, Jr.

By Arabesque

Speculation is one of the favorite pastimes among those who like to play “armchair conspiracy theorists”.  This is especially true when it comes to 9/11.

As seen in the Scientific Method, speculation is indispensable,[1] and is always valuable when used in the right context.  Indeed, theory would be impossible.  

If Dr. Steven Jones had never speculated about the use of thermate in the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers he would never have found the incriminating evidence of thermate proving beyond any reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an inside job.[2]

Here’s how speculation should work, as it does in the Scientific Method:

·        Observation: Molten Metal for months at Ground Zero

·        Speculation/Hypothesis: This is characteristic of a Thermite reaction—not Jet Fuel Fires

·        Validation: Samples from ground zero tested for thermite—a variant called thermate is found.[3]

If there is no way to validate speculation it is impossible to get definitive answers. 

Truthmod, an activist/moderator on the website TruthMove.org sums it up:

“Speculation gets us nowhere. Go with the sourced and confirmed facts and we can't be denied. Plane swapping, DEW, pods, no-planes, etc. all put us into the category of speculators and theorists while established facts give us credibility as true researchers and journalists.”[4]

Speculating about what happened on 9/11, examining the credible facts that show 9/11 was an inside job,[5] and examining the contradictory facts that demonstrate that the 9/11 official story is false[6] are all completely different things.

There are situations where speculation is the only option when evidence is being deliberately withheld. In such situations we can’t finalize or jump to conclusions—we can only speculate.  When forced into this situation we should instead call for the release of more evidence and ultimately, a new investigation.

The withholding of 9/11 evidence serves two functions:

1. To hide the truth
2. To encourage speculation and distract attention away from verifiable facts

Encouraging speculation is part of an intentional diversion that plays on the psychological understanding that humans crave mysteries, and not what they know.  The government is smart enough to understand that speculation frequently occurs when there is a lack of evidence, and that "conspiracy facts" are consequently ignored in favor of "conspiracy theories". 

There are 9/11 “researchers” who make speculation the entire basis of their existence, and they are among the least credible “activists” within the 9/11 truth movement.  ‘Truthmover’ at truthmove.org observes:

“This is one important reason to reject the 'big tent' mentality. The core of this movement, its facts and priorities have not changed. We have established probable cause to suspect government complicity. Anything detracting from this case or its promotion is not a part of the truth movement. In other words, the movement hasn't ever really split. There is another movement, adopting our themes, that has no particular dedication to the truth. I'll call them the ‘9/11 speculation movement.’”[7]

Why stick to what we know when we can guess about what we don't?

Similarly, Dr. Steven Jones suggests that a weak approach to examining evidence can turn people off from seriously examining the real anomalies of 9/11:

“Watching the ‘In Plane Site’ video turned me (and many others) away from 9-11 "theories" initially—until I found serious researchers, scientists looking at hard evidences, and avoiding tenuous speculations.”[8]

Anyone even slightly paying attention to the Mainstream media in relation to criticism of the official 9/11 narrative would notice that there is a deliberate focus on only the 9/11 theories that are supported by “tenuous speculations” or even deliberate disinformation—mostly under the propagandist and wearily clichéd banner of "conspiracy theory"; completely ignoring the confirmed and embarrassing “conspiracy” facts.[9] Dan Abrahamson asks of those who speculate at the expense of the confirmed facts:

“Does their speculation get us any closer toward building a nationwide political movement and arresting the 9-11 plotters? Or is it a divisive strawman that will isolate us from the mainstream media and average Americans? …Suddenly it appears the controlled demolition, WTC 7, NORAD stand down, hijacking drills, war games, ‘Angel is Next’ call to Bush, living hijackers, double-agent hijackers, CIA insider put options, and ‘al-Qaeda’ links to Anglo-American intelligence are not enough.  Now every researcher has their own pet theory about no planes, no hijackers, no phone calls, no Pentagon Boeing, and no flight 93 crash (they claim it landed it Cleveland and the wreckage in Shanksville was, you guessed it, planted).”[10]

9/11 Commission: Insider Stock Trading had “No Conceivable ties to Al Qaeda”.  Michael Ruppert agrees: he investigated and found ties to the CIA.[11]

As Abrahamson says, our speculations are highlighted and our facts are ignored by the Media.  This is exactly how speculation is used as a weapon against the cause of 9/11 Truth.  

Alex Jones similarily asks:

“Why no discussion of Building 7 and the comments of Larry Silverstein? Why no discussion of the hijackers being trained by the US government? Lt. Colonel Steve Butler of the Monterey Defense Language Institute was suspended from duty after he accused Bush of allowing 9/11 to happen. Why no discussion of the NORAD stand down? Because none of these issues are honey pots, none of them are speculation because the cards are laid out on the table for everyone to see and the evidence is clear.”[12]

Given the fact that there is no real debate or speculation about the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, what is the purpose of the 9/11 Truth Movement?  Endless debates over tenuous speculation or justice over the many proven facts?[13]

As Jon Gold has said, “the time for debate is over.”[14]

How does unsubstantiatable and never-ending speculation bring us closer to Justice?  How will it force another investigation?   

In the information war, we are never going to be victorious or have a powerful effect by debating weak arguments that can’t be proven endlessly.  It is self-defeating if we support true (or even false) conclusions with false, misleading, uncertain, unconvincing, or biased arguments.  Unverified speculation is the entire basis of a Trojan Horse Straw-man exploited unmercifully by Popular Mechanics, the Mainstream Media, the left gatekeepers, and many others.

While the facts speak for themselves, they are sometimes not enough to convince everyone, which is why the best evidence must be consistently presented.  As Oilempire says:

“If there is any hope for the ‘9/11 truth’ movement, it will involve refocusing on the evidence that has the strongest proof, and excluding the hoaxes and those who push the hoaxes.”[15] 

While at first glance the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job is unthinkable, those who believe any government is incapable of killing its own citizens have not seen the Northwoods document,[16] paid attention to the fact that the government lied about the air quality at ground zero which will outrageously result in more deaths than 9/11,[17] or observed historically documented “false-flags” resulting in the deaths of civilians to justify wars.[18]

There are many who believe that corrupt elements within the US administration could unload the next 9/11 at any time to justify war with Iran, further destroy civil liberties, and even enable a dictatorship.[19]

Speculating while proving nothing when we have real evidence to prove an inside job and show that the 9/11 official story is ludicrously false is a diversion that suits the perpetrators just fine:

"Speculate, while we continue our wars of aggression planned long before 9/11, kill innocent civilians indiscriminately, steal oil, plan additional synthetic terror attacks under the guise of war-game exercises, make billions for war profiteers, destroy the constitution because the ‘terrorists’ hate our freedoms, terrorize the world with blatantly and stunningly fake propaganda,[20] commit impeachable offenses including treason, engage in other illegal/unethical activities, illegal wars, and our neo-conservative ‘project for a new American Century’."

The sooner that the many fighting for the truth about 9/11  figure this out the better:

The time for speculation is over—9/11 has been proven to be an inside job.  The time for justice is at hand.

---

[1] The Scientific Method, http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

[2] Steven Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? http://www.journalof911studies.com/ See also:

Steven Jones, Revisiting 9/11/2001—Applying the Scientific Method

[3] Ibid.

[4] Truthmod, TruthMod Forum, Sudden rise in "TV Fakery" topics... http://www.truthmove.org/

[5] http://www.911proof.com/ “9/11 Proof… See the Facts for Yourself”

[6] Dvaid Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie, http://www.911truth.org/

[7] Truthmover, Two movements: The 9/11truth vs. 9/11speculation movements, http://www.truthmove.org/forum  

[8] Jim Hoffman, Hoax-Promoting Videos: In Plane Site, http://www.911review.com/ 

[9] Joseph P. Firmage, Intersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11

Dr. Frank Legge, 9/11 - Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions

Dr. Frank Legge, NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire

[10] Dan. L. Abrahamson, 9-11 Truth Movement: Focus or Die, http://falseflagnews.com/

[11] Michael Ruppert, Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA’s Highest Ranks, http://www.globalresearch.ca/    

[12] Alex Jones, and Paul Watson, Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op: Intended to create circus of interest around 'no plane' theories, later debunk them, http://www.infowars.com/

[13] Steven Jones, "What are the Goals in the 9/11 Truth Community?" (Updated Mar 7, 2007)

[14] Jon Gold, The Time For Debate Is Over, http://visibility911.com/ 

[15] Oilempire.com, the rise and fall of 9/11 truth, http://www.oilempire.us/

[16] What Really Happened, US PLANNED FAKE TERROR ATTACKS ON CITIZENS TO CREATE SUPPORT FOR CUBAN WAR, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ 

[17] Laurie Garrett, EPA Misled Public on 9/11 Pollution: White House ordered false assurances on air quality, report says, http://www.commondreams.org/ 

[18] Alex Jones, TerrorStorm Deluxe High Quality (Alex Jones), Google Video, http://video.google.com/

[19] Arabesque, The Next 9/11? Predictions, Propaganda, Motive, and After the Attack, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

[20] YouTube, How to Create an Angry American, http://www.youtube.com/ 

Keith Olberman, Keith Olbermann Updates The Nexus Of Terror And Politics - Creating Terror, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Aluminum-Rich Microspheres

Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Aluminum-Rich Microspheres, the Eutectic, and the Iron-Sulfur System as Applied to the Demise of Three World Trade Center Buildings on 9/11/2001

Jerry Lobdill

Introduction

It has been established through a study of the photographic and video evidence that there were a number of instances of white-hot areas that produced glowing liquid flows from window openings on the 80th to 82nd floor of WTC 2 that persisted for quite a number of seconds.

According to the NIST FAQ1 these events came within the last 7 minutes before WTC 2 began its collapse. White-hot temperatures cannot be produced by ordinary fires. These observations have therefore been conclusively shown to be incendiary events. This fact is inconsistent with any theory of collapse except controlled demolition. Yet the official story remains that the buildings were brought down by fires and damage to the structural members of the buildings resulting from the impact of the planes The WTC 7 wasn’t even hit by a plane, yet it is claimed that it was brought down by fires.

All three buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 were subjects of many video documents that remain today as some of the very best evidence for controlled demolition that we have. It is clear from the videos that explosives were used. The evidence for incendiary cutting of steel consists of the video evidence, the forensic evidence in the dust and rubble, and the testimony of eyewitness early responders and survivors who saw glowing molten metal flowing out of window openings.  This paper deals with the incendiary events and the forensic evidence that remains to prove that the official story is wrong. Specifically, this paper discusses the chemistry of iron-aluminum-rich microspheres that are found in the dust from the rubble, the chemical content of these microspheres and the physical chemistry of the iron-sulfur-oxygen system since sulfur is one of the omnipresent elements in the iron-aluminum-rich microspheres and was also found in a metallurgical study of structural iron from the WTC 72.

Dr. Steven Jones discovered the iron-aluminum-rich microspheres and has analyzed their elemental composition using XEDS analysis.3 This discovery, of recent date, is a very important addition to the body of evidence that disproves the official story. At the present time the interpretation of these microspheres is still under discussion as is the composition of the incendiary they imply.

[…]

About Thermite

The evidence is overwhelming that thermite or a thermite-like mixture was used in the WTC 2 tower very shortly before the building fell. What was the purpose of this? Thermite has been used to weld railroad rail sections together and also to cut structural steel. It has also been used for military purposes such as destroying guns and other weapons, disabling engines, and to rapidly destroy cryptographic machines. It appears that in the WTC it was used to cut structural steel in an early phase of controlled demolition. This use implies that whatever the task, it must be completed in the last minute or so before the building begins to fall. Any chemical process that continues after the primary task is completed is simply an unavoidable sequela of the primary purpose.

An excellent article on thermite is posted in wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Types.

There are a number of possible reactions that could produce large amounts of heat that could be used to melt (cut) steel. For example,

Fe2O3 + 2Al _ Al2O3 + 2Fe

3FeO + 2Al _ Al2O3 + 3Fe

3Fe3O4 + 8Al _ 4Al2O3 + 9Fe

3CuO + 2Al _ Al2O3 + 3Cu

[…]

The observations of Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson (BB&S) (See Footnote 2) describe sulfidation of some structural steel from WTC 7. They say:

“Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000 C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.”9

And they conclude:

“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 210 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.”

We should take note of the fact that they are saying they have no idea of the rapidity of the sulfidation and oxidation process or when it began. They also seem to be aware of the fact that there were large volumes of red hot metal below the rubble piles. (This is rather interesting since NIST, their sponsor, claims they are unaware of any such thing.)11

[…]

About the iron-aluminum-rich microspheres

Dr. Jones13 found these microspheres in WTC dust that deposited in an apartment about 100 yards away from one of the towers. They contain Fe, Al, S, K, Mn and other elements in small percentages. Iron is a major component of these objects.

The spherical shape of the microspheres is caused by surface tension acting on tiny molten droplets. This is the only mechanism by which the spherical shape can be explained. Therefore, these microspheres are proof that molten iron was produced in the process that caused the demise of the WTC towers, a remarkable fact that does not fit the official story. Some of these microspheres are hollow, and Dr. Jones has determined that the inside surface of these spheres contain sulfur. This is consistent with a molten droplet containing some gaseous sulfur. The physics of this situation is the same as for bubbles. The surface tension and the internal gas pressure cause the radius of the bubble to adjust to balance these two forces.

Conclusions

This paper has discussed some physical chemistry aspects of thermite and thermate and shown how science explains the existence of iron-aluminum-rich microspheres, why some microspheres are hollow, and why the metallurgical forensic study produced the results it did. The thermodynamic analysis has provided an understanding of how much thermite is needed to cut away a given amount of steel at 100% efficiency. The complexity of the chemistry involved has been illuminated.

These analyses enhance our understanding of the evidence that proves the use of incendiary devices in demolition of the WTC buildings.

Read more at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf

Steven Jones: Revisiting 9/11/2001—Applying the Scientific Method

From: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

Introduction

In this paper I focus on the application of the scientific method to the study of what really happened on 9/11/2001, particularly in the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings. There is something here to look at in depth: this is serious business. It is not just “nutty fringe science” or “conspiracy theory” that can be rejected without even considering the data. There is need for scientific scrutiny as I hope to demonstrate in this paper. In fact my colleagues and I now feel that we have sufficient data to conclude that the collisions of jets with the two Towers are NOT sufficient to explain the complete and rapid collapses of both Towers and WTC 7. We conclude that the evidence is compelling that the destruction of the WTC buildings involved planted cutter charges (such as explosives and incendiaries). We will consider this evidence.

[....]

Louis Alvarez set that example of not being afraid to voice unpopular hypotheses and then to proceed with experiments and encouraging others to do experiments to get an answer. That’s what we do in science, whether it’s popular or not. The idea of science is free inquiry, free speech and experiments to determine what is correct, what’s true. It is really not a matter of what is popular at any given time.

[....]

The Scientific Method

Consider the scientific method as it applies to the study of the events surrounding September 11, 2001. First we gather observations. Everybody has seen the collapse of the Towers. That’s just the first observation: the Towers did not topple over—they were completely destroyed. And then we add that several hours later, at 5:20 pm the same day, World Trade Center 7 collapsed. This was a 47-story skyscraper that was never hit by a jet, yet it collapsed straight down on the same day. Then we can time how fast the buildings collapse. The total time for the Towers collapse turns out to be around 10-14 seconds; for WTC 7 the fall time of the southwest corner is (6.5 +- 0.2) seconds. Many more interesting observations were witnessed that day and recorded including orange flowing material pouring out of the south tower minutes before the collapse. Dust and debris which were gathered for later analysis contain valuable information which we can observe and analyze. All these observations constitute hard physical facts and evidence.

[....]

The Official Conspiracy Theory

In the case of 9/11, a model of reality was immediately presented without requiring anyone to do much thinking or work. This alone should make scientists skeptical of the official “theory.” Everyone was told that nineteen hijackers crashing planes into two towers caused the total collapse of three sky scrapers. Richard Cheney, shortly before the attack on Iraq, laid out the official theory:

All of that [the US military role of the 20th century] changed on September 11th… We saw on 9/11 nineteen men hijack aircraft with airline tickets and box cutters and killed more than 3,000 Americans in a couple of hours.

Is this the full story? Where were the famous US air defenses that day? Why do so many uncritically accept the “9/11 official story” that a few hijackers in each of four planes overpowered well-trained airline pilots using box-cutters who subsequently brought down three World Trade Center skyscrapers and damaged the Pentagon without being intercepted by a single military jet?

[....]

The rapid, symmetrical collapse of WTC 7

Consider the collapse of building seven, a 47-story skyscraper in the WTC complex which was never hit by a plane. We can learn a lot by measuring the time for descent of the southwest corner of the roof as it begins its steady drop to the ground. A simple way to perform this measurement yourself is to use a stopwatch and time the descent of the southwest corner of the roof from several different perspectives. Videos can be found at wtc7.net. Some activity in the central area of the building can be seen since a kink appears. Shortly after, the southwest corner of the roof begins a steady fall to the ground. The time has been measured to be (6.5 +- 0.2) seconds. (Below: WTC 7 before 9/11, and on the afternoon of 9/11/2001 after the collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 7 still standing, right).)

Personally, when I first saw these videos at http://www.wtc7.net/ and noticed the straight-down symmetrical collapse of this building, my curiosity was roused as a scientist. Of course, you should observe the collapse yourself and consider if the rapid collapse of the building does not look a bit strange and worth further scrutiny.

Is 6.5 seconds a reasonable collapse time? For comparison, consider how fast a brick dropped from the corner of the roof would fall. How long does it take the brick to hit the ground? The answer is 6.0 seconds (and that’s in a vacuum). The roof fell at very nearly free-fall speed! How is this possible? There’s a lot of steel and concrete between the roof and the ground so the rapid fall immediately raises questions. After all, in science, we must consider conservation of momentum, a fundamental law of physics. I do like to teach physics, and conservation of momentum is one of my favorite topics.

[....]

We do have some structural engineers who are speaking out about the collapses of these buildings. For example, Joseph Phelps is on the editorial board for the Journal of 9/11 Studies. He said “the airplane couldn’t cause this… Something is cutting the columns, it’s called controlled demolition.” And two structural professors in Switzerland are quoted in the newspaper there. There is the reference Tages-Anzeiger, September 9, 2006. Prof. Hugo Bachmann stated:

“In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts.”

[....]

We have a Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice group which you can find at http://www.stj911.org/. In fact you can join us, and I hope you consider doing so. The group now has over 350 members, many of whom are academics and engineers, professionals and scholars. We continue to study these data that I’m describing today.

A group (including me) extended an invitation to NIST to sit down with them and debate, we had a certain time and place. They declined. And we said “you name the time and place and we’ll sit down and talk” and they replied, paraphrasing: “a change in venue, a change in time, will not change our decision.” Most unfortunate.

[....]

Fall times for the WTC Towers

The collapse time of the South Tower was stated to be 10 seconds in the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 322). The free fall time of a brick dropped from the roof of the tower, which is 1368 feet high, would be 9.2 seconds. The NIST final report avoids all issues that occur after the tower is “poised for collapse”, including the remarkably short collapse time. By ignoring all observations that occur after the towers are “poised to collapse.” NIST inherently ignores molten metal evidence, collapse features which are not well described by the hypothesized failure mode, and most of the forensic evidence contained in the rubble, dust, and aerosols which were collected in the days and months after the collapses. Clearly, NIST is ignoring a lot of data, and that is not good science.

[....]

From experience you know that if you hit something stationary (like another car) while driving it will slow you down, right? This slowing from collisions is due to conservation of momentum and energy. Now which one of these blocks is going to fall faster? The one falling in air or the one falling onto the remaining 94 floors? Of course, the block falling in air is going to fall a lot faster! When you go through the calculation, which Ken Kuttler did, it takes a lot longer just because of conservation of momentum and energy. Ken’s calculations show numbers over 25 seconds for the complete collapse of Tower 1. That is a lot longer than free fall, and longer than the observed destruction of either Tower. If you add into the calculation a reasonable safety factor, Kuttler then concludes that WTC 1 would not have continued to complete collapse at all. This result agrees with Gordon Ross who says the initial collapse will actually STOP.

[....]

I want to emphasize that the NIST report could be called the official “pre-collapse theory.” Unbelievably, they explicitly state, “it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.”, and “the results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse.” For twenty million dollars, one would think that NIST could have carried the collapse analysis 15 seconds further.

[....]

Now we’ll move on to the subject of molten material pouring out of the south tower before the collapse. If you look at this, you see yellow and orange material coming out of floor 80; you can see metal flowing out of the third and fourth windows over, of the North face, the north east corner or Tower 2.

[....]

The World Trade Center Dust and the Message of its Iron-rich Microspheres

The provenience of the dust sample used in my study is from an apartment at 113 Cedar St. in New York City. This fourth-floor apartment was the residence of Janette MacKinlay, and was approximately 100 meters or so from the closest Tower, the South Tower. During the collapse of the South Tower on 9/11/2001, the windows of this apartment broke and the apartment was flooded with dust. About a week later, she re-entered the apartment and began clean-up and preserved some of the dust in her apartment.

[....]

I collected iron-rich particles in the dust by pulling a magnet across the outside of a plastic bag containing the dust, pulling upwards to the top the magnetic material and pulling this aside for further analysis. These magnetic particles were, as one might expect, rich in iron. There was a surprising amount of this iron-rich material. Although others have reported the presence of iron-rich particles in the dust41, I was surprised to find the abundance of spherical particles in this iron-rich component some of which were considerably larger than previously reported. It was exciting to me to find for the first time iron-rich spheres up to about 1.5 mm in diameter in a 32.1-gram sample of dust.

[....]

Iron melts at 1538oC, so the presence of these numerous iron-rich spheres implies a very high temperature. Too hot in fact for the fires in the WTC buildings since jet fuel (kerosene), paper and wood furniture – and other office materials – cannot reach the temperatures needed to melt iron or steel. (Remember the wood-burning stove…)

[....]

In the thermite/thermate reaction, many molten droplets are typically produced, which form spheres upon cooling in air. They are mostly metallic iron mixed with such other elements which were present in the thermite-analog used. For example, using a mixture of aluminum powder, iron and sulfur, we find small spheres are produced in the thermate reaction. The spheres from the thermite reaction are observed (using X-EDS methods) to contain strong peaks for aluminum and iron, and for “thermate”; sulfur is also prominent. (Note that the iron-aluminum-sulfur spheres from MacKinlay’s apartment contained very low calcium, so the sulfur is evidently not from gypsum, a common building material). Thus we have chemical signatures for thermite variants, and we will compare the composition of the thermite-generated spheres with the spheres found abundantly in the WTC dust.

[....]

Other studies of the WTC dust, such as the USGS survey of and the R. J. Lee study also noted the presence of metallic spheres in the WTC dust, even iron-rich spherules.50 However, the origin of these iron-rich microspheres remained a mystery in earlier studies, which did not present any interpretation that includes the hypothesis that thermite-analogs might have been used in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers and in the concomitant production of iron-rich spheres, nor did they report the iron-aluminum-sulfur combination in the spheres which our team has observed.

[....]

I will simply say in this paper that iron-aluminum rich spheres are seen in both the WTC dust and in spherules produced in thermite-control reactions. Details of the spherules and comparisons are beyond the scope of this paper but are available to me and our team of researchers, and will appear in a forthcoming paper. We consider the information borne by these previously-molten microspheres found in large numbers in the WTC dust, for they tell us much about what took place that remarkable day in history.

[....]

Conclusion

In closing, I wish to emphasize that there are now many capable individuals who are contributing to the quest for the truth about what happened on 9/11/01 and the possibility of insider involvement. For example, there are already over thirty-five peer-reviewed papers at the Journalof911Studies.com.

I wish to add my conviction that 9/11 researchers must not assume a defensive posture, supposing that we are just victims in a brutal chess game. Rather, we can increase awareness of the many lines of evidence that together imply that the 9/11 events involve much more than we have been told by the US government or by the media. Many of us sense a higher Source guiding our research and peace efforts.

I am confident that by working together and seeking the facts with determination, we will succeed in finding out the truth about 9/11. If we act before the next series of restrictions on our liberties, we should be able to achieve justice and peace as well.

DR. STEVEN JONES Lecture in Austin Texas: Project for the New American Citizen: Rebuilding America’s Senses

DR. STEVEN JONES Lecture in Austin Texas

Video Links Courtesy of the Loose Change Forum

Project for the New American Citizen: Rebuilding America’s Senses

PNAC- 4/14/07- NEW 9/11 EVIDENCE

Steven Jones discusses the NIST report, thermite, and his new analysis of “iron rich spheres” found in dust samples taken from an apartment across the street from Ground Zero. This analysis provides additional “smoking gun” evidence that thermite was used in the destruction of the WTC towers. It is noteworthy that these dust samples were flown into this apartment during the destruction of the WTC towers.

Full Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4549750234983943323

Download: http://911mysteries.yweb.sk/download/9-11--PNAC-14.Apr.2007--Steven-Jones/9-11--PNAC-14.Apr.2007--Steven-Jones.avi

pt.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDiL_q1m67k

pt.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45p19_-CS5I

pt.3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0XSPPuxglI

pt.4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGudMVKswVM

pt.5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggc0jT19Pj4

pt.6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ9jjZ8Fep4

pt.7: “[Steven Jones:] This data has never been shown before… I must admit I lost some sleep after I first saw Building 7 come down and did the timing on it… I said ‘Man, this is a smoking gun’…It looked so much like a controlled demolition. But now we can consider another smoking gun… [Pointing to diagram], that’s the signature for thermate…it’s remarkable. The match is right on. [Alex Jones in the background:] “It’s arson”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsp3DPTmiN0

pt.8: “I think this is exiting data—it’s publishable. We will be publishing it.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNGOqSVLgJw

pt.9: “Turns out USGS scientists research also talks about the iron spheres in the dust… I called up… the leader of the USGS study… I wanted to find out—had they seen this, had they not seen this? …I thought they had seen this and had a good reason for not talking about it.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfh5S_FhR4s

pt.10: “When you look inside it’s striking… I said ‘do you have any explanation for these iron rich spheres?’ She said ‘well, maybe it’s because [of oxy-acetylene torches].’ …How could these droplets travel [so far]… [USGS studied dust samples from 14+ sites—iron-rich spheres are “frequently seen”]…and furthermore, the apartment [where Jones got one of his dust samples] is about a football field away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkoTE3S5xKI

Watch the last few parts for new findings about iron rich spheres, which according to Dr. Steven Jones is additional evidence that thermite incendiaries were used at the WTC on 9/11.

‘Thermite Hypothesis’ versus ‘Controlled Demolition Hypothesis’: a response to ‘The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis’

By Arabesque[1]

A review of: The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis[2] by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds.

Wood and Reynolds have frequently been critical of Steven Jones’ research into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11.  Their “thermite hypothesis” paper is a series of objections against the possible use of thermite in the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings.  Many of these objections are answered elsewhere by Frank Legge.[3]   

However, there are other problems with their paper.  In particular, it is demonstrable that Wood and Reynolds distort the actual position of Steven Jones throughout their essay.  This tactic is known as a straw-man fallacy:

“The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.”[4]

The straw-man fallacy is frequently used to “win” an argument illegitimately.  It can also be used unintentionally.  However, as Wood and Reynolds have analyzed Steven Jones’ work in the past, they should know the topic they are discussing and therefore they should be aware that they are distorting the position of Steven Jones.[5]  From their arguments, it quickly becomes apparent that Wood and Reynolds are attempting to “debunk” the possibility of thermite in the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers with illegitimate arguments based on the straw-man fallacy.

Although not openly stated, their misrepresentation of Steven Jones’ position can be summarized as:

“Steven Jones advocates that thermite is the only reason/evidence that the World Trade Center collapsed.”[6]

This is clear from the very title of their essay (“thermite hypothesis”).

Their entire essay implies that Steven Jones has no other evidence because they fail to acknowledge any.  This is significantly misleading as Steven Jones’ theory is not exclusively a “thermite hypothesis”—it is a “controlled demolition hypothesis”.

From the abstract of Why Indeed did the World Trade Center Towers Completely Collapse?

“In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges.  I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.”[7]

There is no mention of any “thermite hypothesis”, or even thermite in the abstract of Jones’ paper that investigates the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.  As well, Jones’ paper gives “Thirteen Reasons to Challenge Government-sponsored Reports and Investigate the Controlled-demolition Hypothesis.”[8] Again, there is no mention of thermite in the titles of these sections.

Tellingly, the phrase “controlled demolition hypothesis” does not occur one single time in the paper by Wood and Reynolds—although “controlled demolition” makes about 6 rare appearances in a list of 30 objections.  Similarly, the phrase “thermite hypothesis” does not occur one single time in Steven Jones’ paper on the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. 

Controlled Demolition has 11 features: all of which are argued by Jones and others[9] to be present in the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7:

• Sudden Onset
• Straight-Down Collapse
• Free Fall Speed
• Total Collapse
• Sliced Steel (conveniently manageable pieces)
• Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials
• Dust Clouds
• Horizontal Ejections
• Demolition Rings
• Explosions
• Molten metal

Wood and Reynolds ignore all of this and deceptively imply that Jones' hypothesis is solely based on thermite (i.e. “thermite hypothesis”).  Thermite is only a small portion of his complete hypothesis, and is mostly discussed in association with the molten metal found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.  Although Wood and Reynolds call Jones’ theory a “thermite hypothesis”, they ignore the fact that he has analyzed metal samples which strongly implicate the use of thermate.[10]

Wood and Reynolds misinterpret Steven Jones’ actual hypothesis (i.e. a straw-man fallacy) and proceed to only challenge the thermite portion of his theory.  In essence, they imply that disproving the use of thermite disproves Jones’ entire theory (i.e. controlled demolition).  This would be a false conclusion because it ignores the fact that Jones has indicated that more than one type of explosive could have been used in his theory:

“I maintain that these observations [of molten metal] are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.”[11]

From an interview by Jim Fetzer (January 17, 2007):

Jim Fetzer: Q: “are you suggesting both [thermate/superthermite] were used in the Twin Towers?”

Steven Jones: A: “I’m suggesting that’s possible along with other explosives”[12]

The authors ignore statements like these, and continuously imply that Steven Jones is arguing a “thermite-only” hypothesis. 

Wood and Reynolds:

“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."[13]

Their Straw-man argument in this objection is particularly stunning.  Let’s say you have a theory. Your theory (Z) has 11 components:

1. A
2. B
3. C
4. D
5. E
6. F
7. G
8. H
9. I
10.  J
11.  K (x, y, etc)

K is comprised of its own elements x and possibly others yet to be identified (y, etc). This is admitted in the theory. You have also acquired physical and visual evidence that strongly implicates that x is indeed present.

Now let’s say someone comes along and says your entire theory is x—ignoring the 11 primary elements of your theory. Imagine someone just called only one part of your theory/evidence your entire “hypothesis”. Imagine that they ignore the fact that x is only one component of K and can be at least be partially explained by other elements as well.  That would be a pretty impressive straw-man fallacy. 

Wood and Reynolds have committed this straw-man:  

Z represents Steven Jones’ “controlled demolition” hypothesis.  A-K are the 11 features of controlled demolition. K represents the molten metal.  x represents thermite/thermate, and y, etc are other explosives (i.e. RDX, HMX, etc) yet undetermined.  Although any of these explosives can explain molten metal, only a chemical thermite reaction has so far reasonably explained the presence of molten metal for weeks after 9/11. 

Thermite/thermate does not explode. 

Therefore, it would not explain any of the “explosive” features of controlled demolition!  Steven Jones has analyzed molten metal samples which strongly implicate the use of thermate:

• He is advocating that it can explain molten metal for weeks after 9/11.
• He is not advocating that it can entirely explain all 11 features of controlled demolition.

This is why it is incorrect to imply that disproving the use of thermate invalidates the entire controlled demolition hypothesis.  Although superthermite is explosive—Wood and Reynolds are asking specifically here: “where is the proof that thermite/thermate has EVER been used to completely pulverize buildings in controlled demolition.”[14]

In fact, explosives in combination are frequently employed in controlled demolitions.[15]  This inconvenient fact was ignored by Wood and Reynolds, and an illogical “thermite-only” straw-man fallacy is pursued unmercifully against Jones. 

I return these questions to Wood and Reynolds:

• Where is the evidence that Steven Jones is maintaining a thermate-only hypothesis? 
• Where is the evidence that controlled demolitions always use one type of explosive?

As well as ignoring the possibility of explosives in combination, the entire paper by Wood and Reynolds can be characterized as a straw-man fallacy because it is not necessary to know which types of explosives are used to conclude that a controlled demolition has taken place.  Although the eleven features of controlled demolition are primarily caused by explosives—we can examine these features separately to determine that a controlled demolition has occurred.  In other words, free fall speed, molten metal, and other features are independently observable from what caused them.  As an example, if we observed the Kingdome crumble to the ground (as it did in a controlled demolition), we would not need to know which types of explosives were used to know that it was a controlled demolition.[16] As David Ray Griffin has said, “No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has never not been a controlled demolition.”[17]

The authors ask if the thermate found by Jones was used for cleanup.  This ignores that:

1.      Thermite is extremely dangerous; it cuts through steel like “a hot knife through butter.”

2.      They were trying to find survivors; any cleanup was secondary to finding the victims.

3.      Steven Jones has answered this question repeatedly in his presentations. It appears that the authors have ignored this fact.[18]

Did anyone know that there were almost no survivors in the rubble after 9/11?  The widespread use of thermite would have endangered any attempts to save lives.

The presence of molten metal[19] in the rubble of the World Trade Center buildings is argued by Jones to be very strong evidence of explosives because jet fuel fires as well as other diffuse flames are incapable of melting steel.[20] Wood and Reynolds have never objected to this assertion in their paper. 

The authors fail to rely on physical evidence to discredit Steven Jones’ thermate analysis.  Perhaps they should study some molten samples of their own to determine what could have caused “a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused ‘intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.’”[21] The New York Times described this as “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”[22] FEMA analyzed samples of molten metal from ground zero that had shown strong evidence of a chemical thermite reaction.[23] Indeed, this report strongly corroborates the work of Steven Jones.  Are not Wood and Reynolds interested in solving this “deep mystery”?  Why is it that Wood and Reynolds do not petition for the release of more molten metal samples held by the government in their list of 30 objections? 

VII. The Scientific Method

In this section, the authors imply that they have used the scientific method while discussing the “thermite hypothesis”.  If the scientific method does not ignore evidence, why are Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds ignoring Steven Jones’ position about the possibility of explosives in combination with thermite variants as well as the eleven features of controlled demolition? 

Strangely, Wood and Reynolds claim that the evidence has “contradicted” the use of thermite.  Putting aside all of the aforementioned criticisms, Wood and Reynolds have made no attempt to explain how molten metal could be present for weeks at ground zero in their objections.     

VIII. Aluminum Glows

Wood and Reynolds continue with their often repeated molten aluminum straw-man fallacy.  The authors proceed to discuss molten aluminum, but curiously fail to provide any context:

“He fails to account for what molten aluminum looks like if heated to the same temperatures as molten iron (1538°C).”[24]

Wood and Reynolds neglect to mention that the necessary temperatures needed are impossible to reach with jet fuel fires as seen in the World Trade Center.[25] The maximum temperature of a jet fuel fire is 1000°C, far below the temperature that Wood and Reynolds say is required to get aluminum to turn orange.  In fact, jet fuel fires are not even capable of melting steel.[26] It is therefore very misleading to say that Steven Jones had not considered these temperatures (1538°C)—why would he when they are impossible to reach with temperatures from a jet fuel fire? As well, the NIST report indicates that the jet fuel fire temperatures were significantly lower than 1000°C—they did not record any evidence of jet fuel fire temperatures over 600°C.[27]

Wood and Reynolds also neglect to mention that a thermite reaction could reach the necessary temperatures to create the observed molten metal/steel that Steven Jones argues is falling outside of the South Tower just before its collapse as seen in video and photographs.[28] Some have claimed that this metal was aluminum from a plane.  Jet fuel fires can’t cause aluminum to reach the necessary temperatures to “turn orange.” A thermite reaction can reach the necessary temperatures, melt steel and account for this visual evidence.  Not only has Steven Jones found traces of thermite in molten metal samples, there is visual evidence further confirming his hypothesis. 

Conclusions:

Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds have failed to discuss Jones’ full hypothesis in their essay, therefore they have failed to answer his full argument.

Even if the arguments presented by Wood and Reynolds in this essay were completely valid, they do not challenge Steven Jones’ controlled demolition hypothesis in any meaningful way.  Effectively, their argument attempts to disprove the type of incendiary/explosive/cutter-charge used—there is no attempt to discredit the possibility of other explosives being used.  Their list of objections completely ignores the fact that Jones’ actual theory involves explosives in combination as well as the eleven features of controlled demolition. 

Ignoring evidence is not scientific and frequently results in biased and unscientific conclusions.  Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds are entitled to any legitimate criticisms of Steven Jones.  They are not entitled to distort his positions and present deceptive arguments.  As they have written papers on Jones’ research in the past, they have no excuse for these misleading arguments.   

---

[1] Arabesque, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Member and 9/11 Researcher: http://www.911blogger.com/blog/877.  

Note: This article has also been published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ArabesqueReplyToWoodAndReynoldsThermite.pdf

[2] Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis, December 14, 2006. 

[3] Frank Legge, A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds, January 11, 2007.

[4] Definition of Straw-man Fallacy taken from http://www.nizkor.org/:

Person A has position X.

Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

Person B attacks position Y.

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

“This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.” 

[5] For evidence of this fact read:

Reynolds and Wood, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?

Reynolds and Wood, Reynolds and Wood try to help Steven E. Jones, August 27, 2006. http://nomoregames.net/

[6] No source is provided for this implied assertion.

[7] Steven Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? Page 1.  

[8] Ibid. page 5.

[9] David Ray Griffin, The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True.  Authorized Version (with references & notes). See also:

Steven Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?, Word Document, http://www.journalof911studies.com/.

[10] Paul Watson, Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries, June 20, 2006.  http://www.prisonplanet.com/ “using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples [of iron taken from Ground Zero]—we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese—these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate.”  See also:

Griffin, The Destruction of the World Trade Center and Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?

[11] Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?  Page 6.

[12] Interview of Steven Jones by Jim Fetzer on the Dynamic Duo show on gcnlive, January 17, 2007. http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/JimFetzer-StevenJones_20070117.mp3   Listen to about the 83:00 mark and forward for comment about other explosives in combination with thermate/superthermite.

[13] Wood and Reynolds, The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis

[14] Ibid. See Proof of Concept: Questions 2 and 3.

[15] http://www.explosionworld.com/, Did you know?  “CONCRETE VS. STEEL: In the United States and Europe, support columns in most buildings are constructed of either steel 'H-beams' or concrete (with steel reinforcing bars). Some buildings actually have both.  DID YOU KNOW that these two types of support columns require two completely different types of explosives to cause their 'failure'?”

[16] http://www.controlled-demolition.com/, Imploding the Kingdome step by step.

[17] Jim Hoffman, Review of ‘A New Standard for Deception’ A Presentation by Kevin Ryan, October 15, 2006.  http://911research.wtc7.net/

[18] Steven Jones, Answers to Objections and Questions, pages 75-76.  “Researcher Michael Berger checked with a number of steel-cutters and workers at Ground Zero. They reported that oxy-acetylene torches were used to cut the steel members -- Not thermite.  Also, reacting thermite ejects globs of molten white/orange-hot iron – would cause VERY dangerous burns! Therefore, thermite was not used in clean-up.”

[19] FEMA Report: Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study.  See also:

Jim Hoffman, Forensic Metallurgy: Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives.  http://911research.wtc7.net/

“Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’” from:

James Glanz, Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated, New York Times, November 29. 2001.  See also: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

[20] Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? page 6.

[21] Joan Killough-Miller, The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel, WPI Transformations, Spring 2002.  See also: 

Hoffman, Forensic Metallurgy: Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives.

[22] Ibid.

[23] FEMA Report: Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. 

[24]  Wood and Reynolds, The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis.

[25] “In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.” Taken from: Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?” Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).

[26] Ibid.

[27] Hoffman, Review of ‘A New Standard for Deception’ A Presentation by Kevin Ryan.  The NIST reports low fire temperatures.   

“Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F [or 280 C]) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"

“Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)” http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

However, these recorded observations by NIST ignore the fact that there was molten metal as reported by the FEMA report.  This is hardly surprising since NIST called molten metal “irrelevant” to their investigation.  See here:

Jim Hoffman, NIST's World Trade Center FAQ A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's ‘Answers to Frequently Asked Questions’.  August 30, 2006. 

[28] Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? Pages 12-16.