Thursday, 21 February 2008

Dr. Steven E. Jones Discusses Thermate Explosive Evidence at the Boston 911 Conference


(6:47)

Professor Steven Jones has already demonstrated the presence of thermate explosive products in the dust and steel at the World Trade Centre site- smoking gun proof that 911 was an inside job. In this video, Jones discusses another "anomaly" found in the dust- red chips- that he suspects are the remnants of the Thermate explosive itself. Results are pending from independent analysis.

5 comments:

spoco2 said...

I just can't subscribe to the thermate theory either: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWpC_1WP8do

SpookyPunkos said...

My apologies, but the video "rebuttal" you cite in your link is trash. :(

The video's counter argument, against Steven Jones' Thermate work, is not even a true rebuttal but a clever attempt at de-railing the debate. A hatchet job based on misinformation and distortions ...

Here is a summary of the mistakes, errors, lies present in the video you cite. There are 4 I can readily identify:

1. It avoids any discussion as to what sort of metal samples were analysed. Of particular note is fact that the samples showing Thermate/thermite products consisted of Iron rich SPHERES. These spheres, prevalent in the WTC Dust, could only have formed due to the metal being at temperatures ABOVE its melting point of 1500 degrees celcius. (the spheres are formed due to surface tension acting whilst the metal is superhot- the same principle was used to create lead musket balls by dropping molten lead from a high tower in times past. Go and look it up !) The obvious question is how did the building fires reach these extreme temperatures when the evidence (even the NIST report confirms this) shows fire temperatures in the order of 600-650 degrees celcius ? The spheres in themselves are damning evidence of foul play.

2. The rebuttal video also has to explain how these WTC iron spheres became "fused" with all the other elements present in the Towers, without experiencing superhot (explosive/incendary)temperatures, AND in the correct ratios, so as to closely match known thermate examples. Please note, there is nothing suspicious about the tests conducted by Steven Jones. He merely followed the same type of analysis as used by fire investigators in order to determine whether arson had been committed. In this case arson (thermate/thermite) was proved.

3. The video misleadingly addresses the ratios of Sulfur (an ingredient of thermate/thermite) that Dr Jones expected would be present if 1000 pounds of explosives were used to demolish the WTC- the vid claiming that the ratios found in the samples represented amounts much greater than predicted by Jones' claim thus discrediting his position. This, however, is a totally bogus argument and avoids the fact that the criticism here is directed solely towards a HYPOTHETICAL case made by Dr Jones and does not address any hard evidence such as the ACTUAL ratios of Sulfur, found in the iron rich samples (which just happened to match levels expected for thermate/thermite type incendaries).

4. The video outright lies when it claims that "a reasonable scientist would ensure that all of the elements of thermate are present, and this is where Steven Jones' thermate claim completely, utterly falls apart" going on to mention that Aluminium Oxide and Baruim Nitrate should have been detected but weren't. However, Aluminium and Oxygen were found in the samples AND in ratios entirely consistent with a thermate/thermite type reaction. Furthermore, Barium Nitrate, is NOT a necessary component of Thermate and may or may not be present. BN is not even a key ingredient needed in terms of burning power either- all it does is lower the ignition temperature (to make it easier to light) and creates a lot of flame. Barium Nitrate is only used in some variations of the incendary.

Please consider: that an explanation that does not adequately cover the facts is no explanation at all- especially one which uses false arguments (the sulfur ratio hypothetical) and gross distortions (lying about the required elements necessary for thermate).

The fact of the matter is that we do not know exactly what sort of incendaries and explosives were used, but we do have strong evidence (from the analysis on the iron spheres) that indicates it consisted of some variation of thermate -meaning that at least part of the collapses involved the this type of incendary.

The science regarding the steel/iron from the WTC site is sound.

Note: there has been no professional rebuttal to the evidence presented by Jones or the other scientists at Scholars For 911 Truth and Justice -or against the work presented at Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. All we get are these half-arsed debunking vids, and similar false claims and arguments put out by Popular Mechanics reps, that although very clever, do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

I am sorry you were persuaded by this stuff.

Vierotchka said...

Well rebutted, spookypunkos.

I think you ought to add this link to your list of links:
patriotsquestion911.com

SpookyPunkos said...

Thanks Vierotchka,

I added the link you suggested. I try to limit the list of websites so as not to inundate new readers with too many choices. There are some key sites I would like people to focus on first that deal with the physical evidence. Thanks again for your support.

Davol White said...

We are living in Bizzaro world because we all saw buildings obviously brought down with explosives yet we are stuck digging through covered up evidence to prove it. The burden of proof should rest on this demonstratively lying government to prove to all of us that those buildings just fell at free fall speed on their own through some strange anomaly that was impossible with the old physics prior to 9/11/2001.