Some Straight Forward Questions For Steven Jones on the Subject of his Research

by Scott Creighton (reposted from April 07,2009)

Nearly one year ago, in May of 2008, I made a mistake;  a mistake that  I will correct at this time.

On May 25th of 2008 I wrote… An Open Letter to Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe On the Subject of Detonator Cord.

The letter deals primarily with the possibility that detonator cord which consists of the high-explosive PETN, was used to pulverize the concrete floor systems in the Twin Towers and that the iron-rich spheres that Jones had discovered in the Ground Zero dust may in part be the missing trusses from those very floor systems.

PETN filled det cord commonly used in demolitions

PETN filled det cord commonly used in demolitions

(look at that one on the right. That has the relative detonation velocity equivalent of 1 stick of dynamite for every 5-6 feet. Imagine what 3 or 4 lengths of this stuff run 4 feet apart under the floor pans and above the trusses would do to each floor. Now THAT would explain the missing floors and the dust all over lower Manhattan. Too bad no one in the Truth movement wants to test for it.)

Theoretical placement of det cord

Theoretical placement of det cord

We know that a “fiber optic cable” installation project was underway for years prior to the demolition of the towers. Look at those “cables” up there. You could conceivably run those cables all day in an office and tell people it was new “fiber optic” lines, and no one would think twice about it.

Marvin Bush was a principle of that company from 1995-2000.  According to it’s CEO after the trade center attack, Barry McDaniel, they still held the security contract “up to the day the buildings fell down”.  Which means the same company that installed the “fiber optic” cables and had connections to the Bush administration through not only Marvin Bush but also through Wirt Walker, maintained absolute control of the buildings engineering and access.

Without rehashing my argument for the use of detonator cord (det cord) in the destruction of the towers, let me just hit the high-lights for arguments sake.

Det cord has a detonation velocity higher than that of TNT (about 1.6 times the power of TNT by mass). The detonation velocity of det cord (PETN) is 8,400 meters per second which makes it a rather powerful high-explosive. One of the most powerful.  It is also very stable with medium range friction sensitivity and traits make it useful in the demolitions industry. With a relative effectiveness factor of 1.66, it is very useful to the industry, in fact.

You will notice in Steven Jones’ new paper, that he isn’t capable of producing an estimate for the  detonation velocity of the “thermitic material” he is studying. That’s odd isn’t it? Because  detonation velocity is very important in this application; demolition.

Thermite and thermate would not be classified as a “high explosive” but rather a low-explosive.  They are incendiary materials because though they burn at a relatively low rate of speed, the release a lot of energy when doing so.

That is why you keep seeing energy comparisons being made by Jones in his new paper – but that energy he mentions translates mainly to heat output, not to the potential of creating a shock wave.  It’s that shock wave that produces the “explosive” effect that could pulverize concrete floors or shoot multi-ton steel beams across 300 feet of lower New York City. And it is the detonation velocity that creates the shock wave.

But while he does make those energy comparisons of some explosives to his “thermitic material”, he doesn’t include PETN in his comparison chart. “The heat of explosion(of PETN) is 5,862 kilojoules per kilogram[2], or 1.4 times that of TNT.”.

PETN by way of det cord, is commonly used in the demolition industry.

It is also commonly used by terrorists. Therefore standard tests have been developed over the years to identify the residual trace elements of PETN in criminal investigations.

This is what I was suggesting Steven Jones look into; testing the ground zero dust that he had/has in his possession for the trace elements of PETN or other high-explosives commonly used in the demolition industry.

To this day and to my knowledge Steven Jones has not run those tests.

Much to the dismay and amazement of many people looking for a real investigation of the events of 911, FEMA, USGA, NIST, and ultimately the FBI none of them ever tested for the presence of explosive residues in all their separate opportunities to do so.  All of them have made a point at one time or another to openly make the statement that they have not tested for explosive residues in the dust or at the site. All of them have stated that remarkably, they have not run those tests.

And neither have we.

Back in May of 2008, my conversations with Jones moved beyond the 911 Blogger thread that I put the article up on.  In an email response to me, he expressed an interest in looking into this further, but then he referred the matter to Greg Roberts and my discussion about the subject went forward with him.

At long last, after being told that they were really more interested in pushing for political or legal action, Greg Roberts told me something quite amazing in one of his last emails to me.

However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it. 😉   Thus, the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered.”  Roberts

The idea that you wouldn’t run a scientific test, that is standard investigative procedure when an explosive is suspected, for any reason, let alone for “potential P.R.” consequences… was astounding to me.

To make a long story short, in May of 2008, the idea of testing verified Ground Zero dust in Jones’ possession for PETN residues came to an unceremonious halt.  Even though Roberts had suggested they didn’t really NEED more evidence to support the call for a new investigation, they seem to have been working quite diligently since then on this new paper by Jones et al.

But either way, the tests that I would have liked to have seen the FBI and NIST and FEMA run… were ultimately rejected by our leading “Truth” researchers.

Now lets fast forward to this past weekend.

Out comes Jones new work and the Truth community is a buzz.

Jim Hoffman puts forward a rather implausible hypothetical demolition scenario which I spent 20 hours or so going through and making suggestions. Some of which he actually seems to have incorporated in his work.  But still the notion that illegal immigrants running around with 1.8 million ceiling tile bombs and fully functional kicker charges disguised as fire extinguishers in a working office, well that still seems a little far fetched if you ask me.

But this evaluation of mine of Hoffman’s work seemed to get Jones’ attention again and so I used the opportunity to put the question to him again.

I also asked him how he got the dust from the Stardust Hotel and the Key Bank demo jobs that he mentions in his new work.  And he informed me that he got it from the “CDs” which I took to mean the company that produced the demolitions; CDI.

There are serious questions that I have with his new work, and one of them is how he can make the statement that they don’t believe the towers were demoed via “conventional means”. Jones responded to that question by suggesting what I had suggested, that because it didn’t look like Building 7, they suspected it wasn’t “conventional”.  But that more to do with the sequence of demolition process and nothing to do with the materials used.

And keep in mind, the idea to test the ground Zero dust for standard demolition industry explosives had been communicated to him, by me and others, nearly a year ago.

Another question I have with this new study of his – since he suggested in a comment on 911 Blogger that there may be an “upper limit” of 90 tons of this UNEXPLODED thermitic material and a lower limit of “tons”… what actual amount of this thermitic material would have been installed in the first place?  I mean, if an “upper limit” of the unexploded material is still lying around… how much actually exploded? What percentage would have blown up the buildings?  If even the lower limit of his weight estimate “tons” is true, and the exploded to unexploded ratio is around 9-1 or even 20-1 … what does that mean they actually installed in the towers? 20 – 50 tons?   What if the “upper limit” is right? 300 – 400 tons?

All that weight resting on ceiling tiles?

And while we are at it, lets ask this question… since all the photos you present are of extreme close ups and magnified details… why is it, the photos of the actual lighting of the “thermitic material” is 10 feet away and an over the shoulder view where you can’t really see what the guy is doing?

But all that aside, what this thing really comes down to is this;

Why haven’t you tested for explosive residues in the samples of WTC debris that you have in your possession?

I asked you that question in the emails again this week, and what did I get in return?

You suggest I tell you how to run tests for trace elements of PETN. I should tell you?

I didn’t even finish college and I should tell this scientist how to test for PETN residue?

Jones earned his bachelor’s degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility”

Now how odd is it that I should be the one to explain to a Ph.D scientist in possession of actual Ground Zero evidence, how to run scientific tests?  A scientist, by the way, currently working at a leading university with an outstanding chemistry department from what I understand.

I am supposed to tell you how to run the tests?

Well, I did.  4 times and I gave him 3 options…

“I responded 3 times you your question about how to test for these explosive
signatures.

1. I sent you PDFs and links to a place where you can purchase a registered
testing kit that uses a reagent process.

“Sirchie – Explosive Residue Test Kit – cat ERTT10”

2. And I sent you links to a company that you can send the materials off to
in order to have them test the samples in their labs.

“Leeder Consulting:   Explosives Residue Analysis”

3. And I also sent you detailed information on how to use the Griess reagent
process, not only how to use the process but detailed information on the
preparation of the reagent itself.

“The key to selective and sensitive explosives trace identification by TLC
lies in the visualization reagent. Griess reagent, in a number of versions,
has proven to be the most popular means of visualization.”

One question, three clear and precise answers.”

The original emails I still have. All of the correspondence I still have.  Each of the processes I list above in one of my last emails to Steven Jones, I gave him carefully laid out details as to the process. Each email included PDFs and images from either websites of suppliers of the testing equipment to the links to companies he could send a sample off to… I even researched forensic investigation text books and sent him links to the chapter on the Griess reagent test they could do in the lab themselves without anyone knowing.

All of this research I had to do myself, but I did it, hell I wanted to do it.

I am not a scientist, but I know the tests exist. And so does Jones.

The last email I received from Jones after sending all this info and the PDFs and the links…. contained this little gem at the end of it…

I sometimes wonder if emails are getting through, the way you respond.”

So he responds to the emails I sent him that don’t include the facts I found about how he can test for the presence of explosive residue in the dust, but somehow, he is suggesting he isn’t getting the other emails that do have it?

And he hasn’t responded to the last one either that sums up all three potential test procedures.

That’s when it hit me.

Here we are, looking for some deep-secret governmental agency capable of producing some mystery explosive, that may or may not have even had the detonation velocity capable of destroying the concrete floors in the first place, while everyone makes a point to cover their asses in the case of a future investigation by clearly stating they never LOOKED for standard to the industry explosive residues in the WTC dust samples.

And now we can include the 911 Truth Movement in that long list of organizations who refuse to look for the most logical tell-tale evidence one would expect in an explosives investigation.

No Steven, you don’t need someone like me to tell you how to run a test for PETN residue or to research the procedure yourself. You have access to a great many more resources than I do. And you are smarter than I am.

No Steven, you are not going to convince me or anyone else that somehow only certain emails get through to you;  just the ones with out the links to test facilities or forensic testing supply houses or the research I did on how to do the tests yourself.

No Steven, I don’t agree with your comment on 911 Blogger that Hoffmans “Hypothetical Demolition Theory” is “reasonable”.  Controlled demo experts don’t hand 1.8 million separate ceiling tile bombs to illegal immigrants and tell them to run as fast as they can with them through an occupied building.

And no, Prof Jones, I don’t believe you any more. That much is pretty clear to me now.

Nearly one year ago, in May of 2008, I made a mistake;  a mistake that  I will correct at this time.

A year ago I suggested  “… your efforts will rank among those of Daniel Ellsberg, Bob Woodward , and Carl Bernstein.”.   What a gross misjudgment of character that was.

It is not a mistake I am likly to make again.

Advertisements

24 Responses

  1. All this has been very interesting… and upsetting to you Willy, Anyone can see (after you explain it) that the test you request will not be done. either they are afraid to find out that it was a demoliton or they have been told just how far they can go…. if they proceed beyond a limit, they might be jailed on false pretenses or something horrible will happen to them. Whatever. There is no reason to not test for PETN… if it is negative, then the search goes on to other things. Isn’t that what testing does? On the other hand, I wouldn’t trust any test they complete now… they could say they tested for PETN and found it negative… they must be protecting ‘something’ or afraid of it… maybe we should be afaid too.

  2. Jan;

    I and others have asked several times if he has already tested for the trace elements of other explosive materials, and to my knowledge, he has not fully responded to me one way or the other.

    Instead he suggests that I have to tell him “how” to test for these materials. That would kinda be like a forensic pathologist telling a detective he would test for traces of poison in a victims body if only the detective would tell him how do to it.

    Then he also goes off on the “taggant” tangent suggesting that I have to tell him what the “taggant” is in order for him to look for it. One problem; there is no “taggant” in det cord.

    He either doesn’t think I am familiar with the term or that I don’t know what Google is.

    Taggants are tracible markers that were required to be put in some explosive in 1996 as a result of the Anti-terrorism law at that time. The idea is that these markers would be registered and then if there was a terrorist act, they could be used to trace the explosive and then find the suspects.

    That’s all well and good, but the fact is, det cord was NOT included in the bill so det cord is taggantless.

    But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t already established ways of testing for PETN residue in the remains of buildings. And someone with his background should certainly know that.

    It’s a tangent, a misdirection, to suggest that if there is no “taggant” then you can’t tell if PETN was used.

    Oddly enough, not only does this new paper of theirs make the same claim as the FEMA report and the NIST report, that they didn’t test for residual trace elements of commonly used explosives (why would they all feel they have to make that statement?) but then, the paper goes on to suggest that others do look for these things.

    The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC, and we have observed a bright flash on ignition, but determination of the burn rate of the red material may help to classify this as a slow or fast explosive. It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high explosives, as in super-thermite matches [30]. Having observed unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue, we suggest that other energetic materials suitable for cutter charges or explosives should also be looked for in the WTC dust. NIST has admitted that they have not yet looked for such residues.” Steven Jones

    Well that is interesting.

    He is suggesting in this paper that others do exactly what I suggested he and his group do almost a year ago. He is suggesting others do what I am asking him to do now.

    Now why is that? If he suggests others do it, why doesn’t he do it? He’s a scientist for God’s sake employed at a university with a great chemistry department. He has several samples of the material…

    And yet he is trying to get the majority of 911 Truth advocates to start looking into this “thermitic material” that even he says in this paper, may or may not have been able to do what high-explosives were needed to do in the demolition process?

    but determination of the burn rate of the red material may help to classify this as a slow or fast explosive

    The difference between a slow or fast explosive is the difference between a low or a high explosive. Only high explosives create a shock wave that could pulverize the concrete floors of the towers. And therefore only high explosives could have created all that dust in New York.

    So why won’t Jones test for other explosive residues? It’s an interesting question, now isn’t it?

  3. Scott,
    Thanks for all of your extensive study on this subject.
    Although I have not done anywhere near the research you have, I have long had some doubts, gut feelings, about Dr. Jones without actually having anything concrete. My first thought in your ‘Time to Reboot’ post was that is was Jones you were talking about.

    Could it be that he diverts from some aspects of the demolitions because that is what he has been tasked to do? I don’t know but the question still needs to be asked.

    • Kenny;

      I don’t know why Jones and Roberts have taken this position and I can’t really guess. It could be as simple as he and Roberts have their own theory and they wish to promote that above all else. It could be that this is scientific arrogance or something else completely benign like that.

      But when he contradicts himself in such an obvious way, when he states to me in an email that he doesn’t know of a test to check for the presence of these materials… while we are talking about a passage in his recent essay claiming that he wants others to “test for these materials”… it makes me kinda wonder. Especially after the emails I sent him.

      At this point, whether it be negligence or something else, really doesn’t matter as much I think as calling attention to the fact that for some reason even the 911 Truth researchers are refusing to run tests for these materials. These tests have to be run. And we have a professional scientist or two who have the evidence in their possession.

      I just hope pressure can be brought on them from within our community to encourage them to do so. We need to explore these avenues of investigation rather than just repeating the FEMA and NIST explanations as to why we don’t.

      Someone once said that anyone, once they rise to a level of prominence in this movement, anyone must be carefully and continuously scrutinized, for the integrity and the security of the movement. Jones is no different than Gage or Fetzer or Hoffman or Griffin in that regard. Vigilance is the key.

      I don’t know why this has happened, but as you can tell, it had an effect on me.

      Thanks for the comment, Kenny. And for those of you here who don’t know, Kenny runs a great site over at Kenny’s Side Show. You should check it out when you get a chance.

  4. I did read his latest poating on his column and I was very impressed. Couldn’t find a comment spot to tell him. I probably missed it.

  5. All of this info that we have on 911 is really just worthless garbage. Tell me how many times does it take to convince the people of the truth. Most of the population does not read their news it is forced down their throats by the very same people that perpetuated this crime. All of us here at American Everyman knows all to well about false flags and the propaganda that exist in this country. And we can research and make comments until we are fighting with each other over our believes.The diversity on this planet is purely by design. And after reading the comments here and at a dozen other sites I can see that there will never be unity on this planet.In my opinion we are all earthlings, how about you.

  6. Excellent article!

    It kinda makes you wonder why Steven Jones has put so much effort
    into diverting people away from the evidence that Dr. Wood presents.
    Don’t you wonder why Steven Jones does not want you to look at this
    evidence?

    Steven Jones has deliberately misstated Dr. Wood’s work and has
    trained folks to shun it. As you read this, how do you respond to
    the name, “Dr. Judy Wood”? To the surprise of many, Dr. Wood does
    not promote “ray beams from space” or “space beams” or “laser beams
    from space.” These terms were created by Steven Jones to divert
    people from looking at the evidence.

    Dr. Wood only presents evidence. “Oh, I know she is unscientific
    because Steven Jones said so.” What is unscientific about looking at
    all of the evidence that must be explained?

    Steven Jones wants folks to focus on a non-existent hypothetical
    possibility that some yet-to-be-defined “pixie dust” is where we
    should all be looking and that pixie dust is, *sigh* something I
    guess we’ll never be able to determine and, *sigh* we should just
    move along…

    No. We should be looking at the evidence, ALL of the evidence. Here
    is a list of some of the evidence that must be explained.

    http://drjudywood.com/wtc

    Much, if
    not all, of this evidence is evidence that the use of
    “high-explosives” cannot explain.

  7. I was taken in by Steven E Jones – and I helped him in 2006. I tell this story here:

    http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=60

    Over time, it became clearer what Jones’ agenda actually was…

    http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=224&Itemid=60

    • Johnson and Price;

      Though I have to say that I am not the biggest supporter of the DEW theory, I don’t think that it should be dismissed out of hand like Jones and others have done.

      But I now put all these theories into the same kettle really. The one thing no one wants to talk about, the one thing Jones is really avoiding, not just when I bring it up, but also others… is testing for conventional explosive residues in dust samples he has now had in his possession for years. Years.

      This to me is the most glaring deficiency in all of the related 9/11 studies. The fact that we all know this was controlled demolition, and our “leading” researcher is doing everything he can, including pretending he didn’t get emails, to keep from agreeing to run these tests, is pretty much all the evidence I need.

      However, that said, I did watch the video linked to in one of the articles you wrote Andrew, the one about Cold Fusion made a year before 9/11… and the fact that this film singled out Jones as the Bush 41 DOE hitman assigned to attack their results right out of the gate, that tells me a lot about Prof. Jones.

      Anyone who reads this might want to take a closer look at Prof. Jones’ paper and ask themselves why every other picture is up close and in clear focus… except for the ones of his supposed “reaction” of the red-chips from the torch. Why are those photos taken from an angle where you couldn’t possible enhance the image so that you could see what was being heated up? Why exactly is that?

      Jones is a tool. Thanks for the links. Good reading. And a very good video.

  8. Willyloman, you said, “Though I have to say that I am not the biggest supporter of the DEW theory, I don’t think that it should be dismissed out of hand like Jones and others have done.”

    What is “DEW theory?” And what does that have to do with the EVIDENCE? And what does a popularity “vote” have to do with blindly dismissing the EVIDENCE?

    By your response, it appears you did not read the post above, but reacted by ignoring all of the EVIDENCE just as you have been trained to do. Dr. Wood presents EVIDENCE, not a “theory.” ANY scientific explanation of what happened on 9/11 must begin with the EVIDENCE and address the EVIDENCE, and address ALL of the EVIDENCE. Failing to address the EVIDENCE is unscientific and is nothing more than a political witch hunt. 

    Being fixated on “explosives” when the EVIDENCE contradicts it, is not scientific, but pathological. 

    Science is NOT a popularity contest. 
    Science is NOT based on opinion.
    Science is NOT based on a conclusion, where EVIDENCE is omitted if it does not support a particular agenda.

    Science is based on EVIDENCE, all of the EVIDENCE, and only the EVIDENCE. 

    Now, why do you think so many, including yourself, have been trained to look away from the EVIDENCE? Why has this training been so effective? And, who benefits? 
    Tests are meaningless if they don’t address the EVIDENCE.

    In the words of Dr. Martin Fleishmann, referring to Steven Jones,

    “…one must ask oneself the question: suppose that one would wish to frustrate research within a given field of research, without wishing to admit that this is ones intent. Then would one not take the steps which have been illustrated by the example of “Cold Fusion”? At the present time readers will have to reach their own conclusions as to what may be the explanation of the strange events which have surrounded this field of research.”
    http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ7.html#fleischmann

    The same applies to 9/11.

    • Fred;

      In my opinion, in any equation, the simplest solution is probably the most likely.

      This was controlled demolition. All evidence points to that, from videos, to the testimony of the first responders, to the company in charge of the “clean up”. This is the “evidence” you talk about.

      Though you may honestly think the “evidence’ points to ray-beams from space, I do not.

      The “evidence” that has not been tested for is the evidence that I would like to see. Comprehensive evaluations of the dust samples for residues of conventional explosives used in the controlled demolitions industry at the time.

      It would seem rather logical that after all these years, someone in the “Truth” movement in possession of these samples would have taken the time to run these simple tests. That seems obvious to me.

      It’s interesting that you bring up “pathological”… isn’t that what Jones and others tried to dismiss Cold Fusion as? “Pathological science”?

      the “evidence” demonstrates a controlled demolition. It stands to reason that someone test for the most commonly used materials of controlled demolition BEFORE looking for the exotic explanations. Period.

      You may have your personal preferences here, that is fine, and you are free to bring them up on this site, but looking for explosives residue hardly seems “pathological” in an investigation where explosives are suspected. Now matter how you try to phrase it.

      … and by the way, Judy Woods has never produced anything even closely resembling “evidence”. The statement “doesn’t that look odd?” isn’t evidence… her “evaporating core columns” wasn’t “evidence”, it was some stills taken out of context of the last remaining core columns being demoed from the bottom and falling away as the dust flew off them. Her “I don’t know what kind of satellite directed energy weapons they have” isn’t “evidence”. In short, Judy Woods’ DEW Theory wasn’t even close to being either accurate or plausible in any way shape or form. In fact, to me, it’s as ridiculous as Hoffmans’ 1.8 million ceiling tile bombs theory, frankly….

  9. Willyloman writes,
    “Though you may honestly think the “evidence’ points to ray-beams from space, I do not.”

    I am curious, what are “ray-beams from space” and what does it have to do with anything here. “Ray-beams from space” is something Jones promotes. I’m not aware of anyone else promoting such a term, except you, perhaps. So, please explain, what is this “ray-beams from space” you are promoting?

    And, please explain who this “Judy Woods” is that you refer to.
    And please define “DEW Theory.”

    You have a great many falsehoods you are promoting. An honest person does not present false information. An honest person does not hide from the facts by name calling. An honest person does not deny evidence by refusing to look at it.

    I believe the following is a list of evidence that you have chosen to ignore. Bombs in the building do not explain this evidence.

    http://drjudywood.com/wtc
    1. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed “collapse.”
    2. They underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.
    3. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.
    4. The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage, if any.
    5. The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends. There were reports that “The Gap” was looted.
    6. The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.
    7. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up.
    8. The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet and the seismic signal was not significantly greater than background noise.
    9. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
    10. The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
    11. One file cabinet with folder dividers survived.
    12. No toilets survived or even recognizable portions of one.
    13. Windows of nearby buildings had circular and other odd-shaped holes in them.
    14. In addition to the odd window damage, the marble facade was completely missing from around WFC1 and WFC2 entry, with no other apparent structural damage.
    15. Fuzzballs, evidence that the dust continued to break down and become finer and finer.
    16. Truckloads of dirt were hauled in and hauled out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day.
    17. Fuming of the dirt pile. Fuming decreased when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat.
    18. Fuzzyblobs, a hazy cloud that appeared to be around material being destroyed.
    19. The Swiss-Cheese appearance of steel beams and glass.
    20. Evidence of molecular dissociation and transmution, as demonstrated by the near-instant rusting of affected steel.
    21. Weird fires. The appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating.
    22. Lack of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. No evidence of burned bodies.
    23. Columns were curled around a vertical axis like rolled-up carpets, where overloaded buckled beams should be bent around the horizontal axis.
    24. Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side cars that appeared to be burning.
    25. Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of WTC6, plus a cylindrical arc was cut into Bankers Trust.
    26. All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes (120 seconds) after WTC 1 had been destroyed.
    27. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers.
    28. The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings.
    29. More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it.
    30. Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged and destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix.
    31. The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared.
    32. For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume.
    33. The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.
    34. The WTC7 rubble pile was too small for the total mass of the building and consisted of a lot of mud.
    35. Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by “unexplained” waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions.
    36. Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pak explosions in fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC.
    37. There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage.
    38. Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth’s magnetic field with each of the events at the WTC on 9/11.
    39. Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this Hurricane on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean was shown on the map.
    40. Sillystring, the appearance of curious cork-screw trails.
    41. Uncanny similarities with the Hutchison Effect, where the Hutchison Effect exhibits all of the same phenomena listed above.

  10. Referring to the above list of EVIDENCE as “ray-beams from space” is pathological and illuminates your agenda.

    • How can you ask me who Judy Woods is and what her DEW theory is in one sentence, then in the next link to her website?

      Her directed energy weapon theory is not practical or even well thought out. The list of things you mention, can all be explained by high explosives like RDX and PETN and of course, they are the signatures of controlled demolition.

      Why you and the other guy both came here from Wood’s site at the same time to spam links up to her site is beyond me. If you wish to discuss the evidence for conventional explosives, fine, I would like that, but you have made you point about DEW and posted MANY links to her site.

      If you are not gracious enough to accept my flexibility in a reasonable manner, then you will force my hand.

      Woods’ DEW theory is what it is, and for the most part, it has been discredited as highly unlikely… right now I am talking about pressuring Jones to test for explosive residues in the dust.

      would you two like to discuss that or not?

    • I’m sorry, is Woods no longer touting the DEW theory? No more ray beams from space? What now? is it… a weather machine? Is this more of the “the government directed Katrina to New Orleans” theory? just curious…

  11. ANDREW JOHNSON!!%##! YOU SILLY LIMEYS!! what kind of silly horseshit are you commin in here with?? Directed energy weapons from what, the fuckin battlestar Galactica??? Your from MONTY PYTHON arn’t you? That is some first class humor you’ve come here pushing, and i’ve laughd so hard my side hurts. Ans that fucking freaky freedie! You two are a pair!!! I WANNA PARTY WITH YOU TWO!

    ANYWAY,,,,,setting all that above, asside,,I am tasked with sitting at the WILLYLOMAN site SUBVERSION detection console, and you two birds are setting off all the perimiter alarms. Would you two please shut down what ever it is your transmitting in this direction? so i can reset the eqpt?

  12. SPEAK CENTURIAN!!

    E-X-C-E-L-L-E-N-C-Y T H E P A R T I C A L B E A M R A Y G U N W E A P- O N, I S NO O W R E A D Y F O R A C T I V A T I O NNNNNNN…W H A T
    A R E Y O U R O R DD E R R R S..

    CARRY ON WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAN CENTURIAN,,,,,,

    B Y Y Y Y O U R R R C O M M M A N D D D

    • would that be this guy?

      maybe they went to work for Dr. Judy Woods…

      and just to clear one thing up… one of these guys suggested that that was Jone’s suggestion, the “ray beams from space” thingy…

      well, even though I am now putting Jone’s “active thermitic material” in the same category as the ‘ray beams from space”… the truth is, the original “ray beams” was Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood…

      “The Star Wars Beam Weapons
      and
      Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)
      (brought to you by the Star Wars Program)”

      by

      Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds

      This page last updated, December 15, 2006″

      that’s from their website…

      now, if our two illustrious marvels are here to perhaps make Jone’s crap look good by comparison, I guess “Mission Accomplished”, but still there remains the question of why did Jones pretend not to get my emails that I sent him showing him how to test for explosive residue? Why did this scientist even have to ask someone like me in the first place? And why did Greg Roberts refuse to look for it in the dust a year ago when I asked them to, then write in this new paper of theirs that someone should look for it?

      it’s all bullshit folks. Just a big stage play… like professional wrestling with cheaper writers…

  13. SCOTT ALLEN HUMPHREYt said
    April 13, 2009 at 4:35 pm
    ANDREW JOHNSON!!%##! YOU SILLY LIMEYS!! what kind of silly horseshit are you commin in here with?? Directed energy weapons from what, the fuckin battlestar Galactica??? Your from MONTY PYTHON arn’t you? That is some first class humor you’ve come here pushing, and i’ve laughd so hard my side hurts. Ans that fucking freaky freedie! You two are a pair!!! I WANNA PARTY WITH YOU TWO!

    Hey Scott – thanks for talking about evidence. Do you have a website? What do YOU think happened on 9/11? Was Hurricane Erin closest to NYC on the morning of 9/11 or wasn’t it? etc. etc. Oh heck, have a read of this. It all fits the pattern.

    http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=12917

  14. […] in a classic “tell” (lying giveaway) while deliberately misleading the Truth community about detonator cord and other aspects of […]

  15. comment on wtcdemolition:

    “If I could, just for clarification, before I provide the links you asked for, I would like to address your feeling about the use of “nanothermite”

    If they did use it to “weaken” the structure, then it would be the first time in the history of explosive controlled demolition that it was used in such a way and there is a very good reason for that.

    Again, the point of controlled demolition is “control”. “Weakening” the steel prior to demolition probably isn’t a very good idea in that as the steel weakens, the structure itself weakens… and if that happens, well how do you know if something doesn’t fail prior to the explosive demolition? It seems to me you would be adding an uncontrolled element into the mix, when really what you want is for everything to be precisely controlled.

    and again, what are we talking about? A 64th of an inch thick “nanothermite paint” on a column that is 5 feet by three feet of extruded 5″ thick structural steel with another 5″ thick steel plate located INSIDE the column?

    what exactly is a 64th of an inch of paint going to do to that?

    Even Steven Jones and Gregg Roberts have stated repeatedly that the stuff they found is probably just from an “electric match” and that may be more likely than anything else. And of course, the reference for that is in their Nanothermite paper itself.

    but if you guys wish to continue promoting BYU’s “thermite” distraction, be my guest.

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/neoliberal-byu-financed-and-peer-reviewed-prof-jones-flawed-research-in-order-to-support-bush-and-cheney/

    “It wasn’t thermite… they admitted that” well, as for references, the fact that they wrote the “NANOthermite” paper pretty much proves my point there. Thermite and “nanothermite” are NOT the same thing. They are not arguing that they found THERMITE in the dust, they are claiming they found “nanothermite”, so that is pretty much an admission that speaks for itself really.

    “It wasn’t thermate… they admitted that” and again, the sulfur mixed version of thermite is now a forgotten memory and again, the same argument holds true… they don’t claim they found THERMATE in their paper, so that pretty much speaks for itself.

    “It wasn’t superthermite or even “nanothermite”… and they even admitted that many times over.” – now, I of course cite first and foremost their Nanothermite paper which states clearly that the red-grey chips they found may be nothing more than particles from an “electric match” which ignited the REAL damage causing material, conventional high explosives and then they even go so far as to suggest someone else test for residues of such. Then at the end of their paper, they clearly state again that what they found may be EITHER a pyrotechnic or an explosive (they theorize it could be a high explosive with the proper amount of organic material mixed in, but again, they don’t come to that CONCLUSION)

    “The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC, and we have observed a bright flash on ignition, but determination of the burn rate of the red material may help to classify this as a slow or fast explosive. It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high explosives, as in super-thermite matches [30]. Having observed unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue, we suggest that other energetic materials suitable for cutter charges or explosives should also be looked for in the WTC dust. NIST has admitted that they have not yet looked for such residues.” Steven Jones, Gregg Roberts, Harrit, et al

    So that is twice in their nanothermite paper that they admit it’s not conclusive that “nanothermite” was what was used during the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

    So there is one reference

    Another example is from a discussion in which Gregg Roberts himself states that he doesn’t think that “nanothermite” can pulverize anything. That means it’s not a high explosive and if it isn’t a high explosive, it’s NOT a cutter-charge either. Ergo… “nanothermite” can’t be primarily responsible for the controlled demoliton of the Twin towers and Building 7.

    “Question: I was having a conversation with someone in the military who uses thermite when they enter doors and things. And that thermite doesn’t create and explosion. it just creates a bright light and instant melting, so is that because of air pressure that caused the explosions after the thermite went off or is there another reason?

    Gregg Roberts: I wouldn’t say that thermite caused blasts, I would say that would have to have been (unintelligable)… other than explosives which the government has refused to test for (the same way Roberts refused to test for them?)… it would seem to make sence to do those tests when you can see things are shattered…”

    now here you have two clear examples of Roberts, Harrit, Jones, and others stating they need to have the dust tested for the same things that I have been arguing we test for (which of course makes me “disinfo JREFer” to people like Keenan)… however, When I asked Roberts to do this very same thing, this is the response I got…

    “However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it. Thus, the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered.” Gregg Roberts 2008

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/some-straight-forward-questions-for-steven-jones-on-the-subject-of-his-research/

    Formulate your own conclusions.

    My position is this:

    1. The Twin Towers were taken out by explosive controlled demolition (top down style)
    2. Building 7 was taken out by explosive controlled demolition (bottom up style)
    3. Something hit the Pentagon and it wasn’t Flight 77
    4. there probably were no hijackers on board or at least there is no reasonable evidence to show that there were
    5. planes were hijacked by remote piloting systems
    6. Muslim extremist hijackers is a myth
    7. JUST LIKE Gregg Roberts, Steven Jones, Nile Harrit and all the others who wrote the nanothermite paper, I strongly suggest that we test for residues of other explosive agents like PETN, RDX, HMX, TNT…

    these are my positions on the matter

    now, I have written and researched for years and this is what I have come to.. if that makes me a JREFer as Keenan claims, then I am certainly surprised that JREF supports these positions.

    Sorry I didn’t cite sources in the previous comment and I hope this clarifies my position.

    “The future is not inherited, it is achieved.” JFK

  16. […] Some Straight Forward Questions For Steven Jones on the Subject of his Research By Scott Creighton 2009-04-07. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: