Collapse of the Thermite Thesis (with Addendum)

by
Morgan Reynolds

When Steven Earl Jones, then physics professor at Brigham Young University, burst on the 9/11 research scene in September 2005 to wide adulation, a few things didn’t add up but I reassured myself that all would be well, eventually.  After all, he was sincere, appealing demeanor, ‘great uncle’ giggle and all, and he was educable, right?  Wrong.

Jones announced his narrow thermite hypothesis, initially calling for “a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down not by impact damage and fires but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges.”  This statement appeared in a volume edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (2006, p. 33).  Controlled demolition was already established as a popular explanation for destruction of the WTC, so Jones was only adding thermite as the key ingredient.  Sometime later Jones altered the sentence quoted above in his online version (pdf), adding the word “just” thereby changing the original phrase to read “not just by impact damage and fires,” now set off by commas.   This subtly preserves the fiction that airliners contributed to destruction of the twin towers.  The government and media, of course, insist that airliner crashes were the sole cause of destruction.

Jones vigorously defended the official airliner conspiracy theory and casually dismissed “no plane theory” even though it was obvious he had not studied the issue.  Early in the game, Jones claimed he had conducted a “careful inspection of the undercarriage of a standard 757,” and Gerard Holmgren promptly called him on it, proving Jones a liar:

“Your lack of basic knowledge on this subject is exemplified by the fact that you don’t even know what kind of plane is under discussion. You twice referred to the Sth tower object as a 757, when anybody who knows anything about the issue knows that the official story claims a 767. You claim to have conducted a  ”Careful inspection of the undercarriage of a standard 757″  in relation to a debate over an alleged 767 in order to “find” the theory weak?

“Careful scrutiny” is not the phrase I would use to describe such sloppiness. Did somebody say “junk science” ?

There is an old saying, “those in glass houses should not throw stones “, which I think you would do well to remember.

I would advise first learning something about the issue before taking such a bellicose tone in relation to it. “

From this inauspicious entry into 9/11 research, Dr. Judy Wood and I aided by a few others tried to expose Jones’ claims as bogus to little avail.  Most in the 9/11 half-truth movement clung to Jones, his thermite science and alleged evidence in “refereed journals.”  Truthlings labeled Wood, Reynolds and anyone else who dared criticize Jones as crackpots, ‘no planers’ and ‘space beamers’ out to discredit the 9/11 truth movement via  “ridiculous claims.”   Truth supposedly resided in unity (baaaaaa), affirmation of thermite and plane crashes despite weak or nonexistent evidence for same.  “Martyr” Kevin Ryan, luminaries like Neils Harrit, Richard Gage, and a host of lesser names joined Jones in propping up the plane and thermite legends.  Few noticed that this version of events fails to depart significantly from the official Arab hijacker hoax and does not implicate the U.S. military-industrial-intelligence-media-complex because thermite is readily available.  If Jones’ version of 9/11 gained dominance (hijacked airliners and thermite), the real perpetrators would hardly be bothered.  They would only ratchet up their lie another notch and claim the Islamists’ bag of dirty tricks must have included thermite plus explosives planted a la the 1993 WTC bombing.  No MIC culprits implicated.

Jones writes:

Explosives such as RDX, or HMX, or superthermites, when pre-positioned by a small team of operatives, would suffice to cut the supports at key points such that these tall buildings would completely collapse with little damage to surrounding buildings.  Radio-initiated firing of the charges is implicated, perhaps using superthermite matches.  Using computer-controlled radio signals, it would be an easy matter to begin the explosive demolition near the point of entry of the planes in the Towers (to make it appear that the planes somehow initiated the collapse.)  In this scenario, linear cutter-charges would have been placed at numerous points in the building, mostly on the critical core columns, since one would not know beforehand exactly where the planes would enter.

Small team of operatives, maybe like terrorists, professor Jones?  How did they elude detection, especially by patrol dogs?  And the professor believes that bringing down towers one-quarter-mile tall with little damage to surrounding buildings is easy?  Nonsense, the tallest building ever leveled by conventional methods was the Hudson Department store in Detroit, MI, at 439 feet, a height less than 40 stories.  Jones’ reference to superthermite matches and radio-ignition exposes the fact that he has no demolition precedent to point to, no proof of concept.  And what plane crashes, professor Jones?  Powerful evidence proves that claim is eyewash.

Finally, two irrefutable facts by themselves falsify  conventional explosives or cutter-charges as explanations for how the towers were destroyed: 1) small seismic signals during each tower’s destruction, and 2) an intact bathtub prevented the Hudson river from flooding the WTC site and lower Manhattan, thereby proving each 500,000 ton tower never crashed to the ground.  Otherwise, there would have been at least a Richter equivalent signal of 3.8+ instead of the recorded 2.1-2.3 plus a smashed bathtub, causing massive flooding.  The twin towers were largely converted into extremely fine powder, “dustified,” floating, as proved by Dr. Judy Wood in her study of the WTC evidence, Where Did the Towers Go?  (Buy it here).

Recent work by chemical engineer Mark Hightower based on his review of the conventional science and engineering literature proves beyond doubt that thermite, nano thermite, thermate and sooper-dooper thermite have low or no explosive power, and hence are non-starters as candidates to cause anything like what happened at the WTC. This is not new information but Hightower’s work has ignited enough attention to trigger  initiation of collapse of Jonesian thermite doctrine.  Unfortunately, Jones et. al. bought  half-a-dozen years for the evil doers.

Dr. Wood and I have been condemned for asking, “Can a Ph.D. physicist be that retarded?”  Contrary to the consternation expressed over such a question, of course we never believed the answer was ‘yes.’   The answer is no, Jones is not that stupid.  But how then account for his pied piper act leading the 9/11 movement astray for years with a false theory?  If not honest error and stupidity, the only possibility left is that Jones is dishonest, disinfo, shucking and jiving, stalling and playing out the clock for the perps.

Now that professor Jones’ act is on the wane, I raise a toast to our improved prospects for truth to triumph.

ADDENDUM

An observer writes:

Wood and Reynolds asked whether a Ph.D. physicist could be that ‘retarded.’ This thought exercise, by itself, would encourage a more critical look at what S. E. Jones claims for thermite.  To avoid this, Jones’ diverted the focus onto claims of persecution, playing the victim card as loudly as he could.  This successfully diverted folks away from thinking about the answer.

Diverting the public away from information is not foreign to Jones.  Shortly after he learned that Dr. Wood lost her job and became unemployed, Jones announced he had been “forced out” of his job and diverted attention onto his claims of persecution, playing the victim card again.  It became known that Jones had moved to a new residence, then a few months later retired and was promoted to Professor Emeritus, the highest level of achievement for a professor. Someone fired from his job is not promoted.  Jones did not go without an income. So, if Jones was not fired but promoted, why has he played the martyr?  The timing and focus strongly suggest it was a useful diversion. But no matter the motive, the conclusion is that Jones is dishonest.

And the same can be said of Jones’ thermite myth. Thermite is also a diversion, stalling and playing out the clock for the perps. Thermite is used in welding.  It does not turn a building to powder in mid air.  The thermite myth promoted by Jones leads to the question, “Can a nuclear physicist, PhD-educated, be this retarded?”

Source: CIA Manual of Trickery and Deception

http://www.amazon.com/Official-CIA-Manual-Trickery-Deception/dp/0061725897

Prof. Steven E. Jones at UC Berkeley, 2006.