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.

This entry was posted in 911. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Collapse of the Thermite Thesis (with Addendum)

  1. quidsapio says:

    So, you’re saying Jones is adopting a CIA-approved look in that photo which proves he is cointelpro?

    Wow you really do have NOTHING on this guy don’t you?

  2. Atlanta Bill says:

    Yes, great theory, the Nanothermite Theory: all you need to explain the pulverization of the towers is that theory and another one that accounts for the evidence. Great article, Dr Reynolds, and thanks for sticking to your guns on the highly improbable “Crashing Planes Theory”. Now, I only wish you’d give some serious thought to the (non-theoretical) evidence reported by Dimitri Khalezov.

  3. onebornfree says:

    Dachsielady said : “You seem to hold the position that NONE of the videos and NONE of the still photos have been scientifically examined for authenticity and if they were, all would likely to be found to be unverifiable.”

    To be clear, as far as scientific methodology is concerned, my opinion as to the authenticity or not of the visual imagery is irrelevant. My only point is that the “scientists” named have never even tried to verify the authenticity of the imagery they all used to bolster their conclusions. It’s a gross procedural error, in my opinion. After all, how can something [i.e. photos/videos] be held up as “evidence” or “proof” of _anything_ by a scientist, [or even a lay person] when that “evidence”/”proof” has never been subjected to tests for its authenticity in the first place?

    Dachsielady said : “I appreciate many of the observations you and others who seem to hold your same ideas express. However, two times recently I have seen two such persons express something like Mr. Stewart Ogilby recently stated …It sounded like Mr. Ogilby was stating fact, but perhaps you will say he was just stating his opinion. Nevertheless, I ask you, onebornfree, what basis is there in science or legal rules of evidence for this statement?”

    You are correct – and I have no idea what actual “evidence” Mr Ogilby has seen for him to make that statement- he could be right, he could be wrong, I can have no idea at this point. As to that “evidences” basis “in science or legal rules”, again I have no idea – you’d have to ask him.

    Thanks for your observations and questions. Regards, onebornfree.

  4. onebornfree says:

    Jeannon Kralj said : “All of that has not only been dishonest, but I would say also most unscientific.”

    “Most unscientific” – I agree. However, it needs to be noted that _none_ of the “scientists” involved in 9/11 research to date [eg Jones, Wood, Hall, Fox] have _ever_ attempted to utilize a standard , routine, basic, “run-of-the-mill” scientific methodology to reach their “irrefutable” conclusions.

    Not one of them. At least as far as the visual imagery record is concerned.

    Meaning that not one of them has ever attempted to seriously test for authenticity_any_ of the 9/11 films or still photographs they routinely and habitually use to reach/”prove” their own “irrefutable” conclusions, _before_ reaching those “irrefutable” conclusions.

    This amounts to a wholesale denial of the standard scientific methodology, as far as I can see.

    Furthermore, we have a person with a degree in “the philosophy of science” who apparently has taught logic and critical thinking for 30+ years, and who is a prominent 9/11 spokesperson [ “ringmaster”/ master of ceremonies?], Jim Fetzer, who is on record as encouraging/legitimizing these named “scientists” blatantly unscientific procedures. So what’s really going on here?🙂

    See: ” 9/11 Scams: The Junk-Science of Dr. Judy Wood” : http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/04/911-scams-junk-science-of-dr-judy-wood_6336.html

    and “Total 9/11 Video Fakery vs. Richard Hall’s Holographic Plane Hypothesis: A Critique” :
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/total-911-video-fakery-vs-richard-halls.html

    Regards, onebornfree.

    • dachsielady says:

      onebornfree, would like you to show exactly who described which of their findings as “irrefutable.” I can see where the use of that word could be appropriate in some circumstances.

      You seem to hold the position that NONE of the videos and NONE of the still photos have been scientifically examined for authenticity and if they were, all would likely to be found to be unverifiable.

      I appreciate many of the observations you and others who seem to hold your same ideas express. However, two times recently I have seen two such persons express something like Mr. Stewart Ogilby recently stated in comments area at…

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/11/answering-questions-the-midwest-911-truth-conference/comment-page-1/#comment-502197

      “Structural steel beams were neatly cut into lengths fitting into dump trucks lined up for removal purposes.”

      It sounded like Mr. Ogilby was stating fact, but perhaps you will say he was just stating his opinion. Nevertheless, I ask you, onebornfree, what basis is there in science or legal rules of evidence for this statement?

  5. Jeannon Kralj says:

    I just discovered this nice article. I appreciate the way Dr. Reynolds has shown us that from the very beginning the thermite theorists have really held on to the official narrative of planes and hijackers. In a very real way, they are still holding on the official narrative, no matter how much they try to present themselves now as being part of the “inside job” truth seekers. They have from the beginning tried to hint at us that they really were seeking truth and really were looking toward the “inside job” idea, but that was always a tap dance and a lie.

    Yes, the thermite thesis is collapsing, and the nanothermite hypothesis is disintegrating, but the creators and main promoters of this myth whom I call “the nanothermite gang” are very much alive and well. Their leaders’ names and faces are changing over the years, their groups and spin-off groups are morphing into other groups, but we searchers for 9-11 truth are still being herded like cattle into their corral. Truth and justice have never been their goals. Control of the truth search and the searchers has always been their goal.

    Today, Dr. Jones has faded off the scene and is comfortably retired in MormonLand. Even architect Richard Gage and his Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth in about May of 2007 is fading off the scene, but it is all more like a morphing into other names and faces and other groups and people and other foci for the corralled and to-be-corralled 9-11 truth seekers.
    Now we are all being directed or re-misdirected to an entity called Rethink911.org. There will be local groups starting all over the country. Rethink911 supposedly will combine A&E for 911 Truth AND Families Remember Building 7, which is a group of victims family members. This new effort will always take it for granted that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were destroyed in the same manner, by “controlled demolition” and will always refer to those three World Trade Center buildings as having “collapsed.”
    To me, Dr. Steven Jones’ psychological affect has always been inappropriate in many ways. I recall his performance at the 9-11 truth scholars conference in L.A. in June of 2006 and I simply felt embarrassed at his demeanor and his little plastic bag and his holding up what I guess was one of their continually-pointed-to “iron rich microspheres.”

    To me, Dr. Jones has also always been dishonest. From his phony online-only “peer reviewed” studies in his own journal, peer reviewed by his own buddies, to his changing of photos and text wording after original online posting in those same “hard science” studies, to the fact that he and his other “scientists” only telling us about nanothermite in their World Trade Center dust study, and “forgetting” to tell us about over ten radioactive substances that were present in that same dust. All of that has not only been dishonest, but I would say also most unscientific.

    Dr. Jones’ way of responding to people who wanted to talk about planes and other ideas about what happened at the World Trade Center and the other three sites was not appropriate. He usually laughed in a ridiculing way and made some short simple declarative statement and refused to talk about the subjects. Those same truth seekers were summarily dismissed, ridiculed and marginalized in all of the early 9-11 “truth” groups over the years.

    The foci over the years switched from iron rich microsphers, red/grey chips, thermite, thermate, nanothermite and explosive nanothermite, and molten metal and then on to Building 7 and calling for a new investigation.

    The Nanothermite Gang is directly connected to the US military industrial complex and I believe their whole operation has been part of the overall planning and execution and follow-up of the official 9-11 event.

  6. Adnane says:

    Planting-planes’-parts-in-GZ stories aren’t done yet as it seems :

    They really wanna perpetuate the myth of plane crashing in WTC. And most of all, it took them 12 years to find a single landing gear (that must be authenticated first) supposedly from one of the alleged 767s deregistered in 2002 and 2005. No engines, black boxes, CVRs, thousand of plane parts with unique serial numbers, nor even sheared off wingtips and tail section were recovered since gashes on both towers were shorter that the actual 767-200 wingspan.
    Let’s see how far they can go with this new myth…

  7. someone foreign says:

    I guess I am missing the point of this article. What is the main evidence against the demolition theory? As I understand, it is only that the seismic signature was too weak and the damage to the bathtub was too small, pointing us to the missing mass, and therefore in the direction of what could have removed it? What does Jones have to do with small team of professionals needed to wire the towers? These could be either the terrorists (hardly feasible) or the government teams (I though there is a lot of evidence for that).

    Also, is there seismic and damage signature for the WTC7? Was it analogous with the ST and NT signatures?

    There is a lot of wording about how bad is Mr. Jones, but not enough of just plain physics.

    Could the demolition theory coexist with other theories?

  8. excellent article, thank you Dr. Reynolds!

  9. Arthur Askey says:

    what we need is a billionaire to erect a small section of either WTC1 or 2, say 30 floors, and fly a plane into it at high speed and see what happens, i.e. does the plane simply disappear into a building that offers zero resistance leaving a cartoon like hole of its outline (in structural steel) or is there resistance that causes the plane to lose it’s structural integrity on impact, thereby causing an immediate explosion?

    • Why is this comment about a plane-crashing experiment placed below this article? Oh well, in any event, no billionaire in her right mind would finance such an absurdity: it would be a colossal waste of resources. We already know the answer with certainty: in every violent collision in history, the smaller, weaker object is crushed by the larger, stronger object in accord with Newton’s three laws of motion. My Madison slideshow illustrates this truth well. Imagine that a tower fell on a Boeing 767, doesn’t even have to be flying at 542 mph. Remember Newton’s 3d law, equal and opposite? The official plane story is a proven fraud, start to finish. Oh yes, and there is this more recent article titled “What 9/11 Should Have Looked Like.”

  10. Johannes says:

    DEW will never fly.
    Best go with CD ( Explosives – Thermite ) to have any chance of getting an
    investigation if this is what the DEW’s want or do they ?

  11. NotANumber says:

    Dr. Steven Jones has certainly done his part to help cover-up the free energy technology that has been weaponized.

  12. We always knew Steven Jones was part of the perps’ collateral damage control. What troubled us is why you tolerated him for so long. I’m sure you’re aware of the part Jones played in the cold fusion energy affair, prior to the 9/11 military psyop facilitated by the media.

    • Hey Clues, of course I’m aware of Jones’ destructive role in cold fusion, reprised in his 9/11 act. On timing, I’ll admit to prudential lag in jumping all over someone else. Give ’em a break initially is my approach but the lag wasn’t really all that long, since Dr. Wood and I put out a critical article on Jones within 12 months of his arrival on the 9/11 scene.

  13. sumting stinx says:

    youre full of shit. nice disinfo, misinfo and obfuscation though.

    building 7 was a classic controlled demo, if they could prepare that building, they could do the other two.

    • annee says:

      I agree!!!There are already scientist and engineers that have proved, that is scientifically impossible that this two towers had been collapsed due to the fuel fire of an aircaft, we can see tons of evidence that point to a controlled demo, along with other scientific facts like: molten metal, free fall speed, high temperatures, explosives in the buildings during the whole entire event,(in the basement and 1st floor). You people are so blind!! i dont even know how many other evidence of this ‘attack’ you need to see to know the truth…this is the reall debate about thermate you ignorants, which supports mr jones hypothesis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

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