Prof Steven Jones concludes that thermite was planted in all three

[whistle]

...World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001

<snip video>
Prof. Steven E. Jones about thermite melting WTC-steel
9/11 Truth
35 min 55 sec - Jul 29, 2006

<video link> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904&q=alex+jones

[The Deacon]

1. Has He Tracked Down Which US Navy Ship Shot Down

TWA 800 with that missile yet?

[rinsd]

5. LOL!

[DoYouEverWonder]

52. 1st response

As usual.

[Taxloss]

2. His research concurs with the conclusions he reached before the research?

What an enormous coincidence. He must be overjoyed. Other scientists should follow his lead and come to their conclusions first. It could save a lot of time.

[petgoat]

38. He started with a hypothesis, not a conclusion. nt.

[grytpype]

3. Right, the jet fuel had nothing to do with it.

[Sammy Pepys]

4. Mormon? n/t

....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Has he found the people that caused the Tsunami yet?

[BuhByeChimp]

7. Did thermite rig the 2000 election?

[longship]

8. Unbelievable.

Thermite? Fine.

Let's hear about the chain of evidence that supports this.

I can't wait.
:popcorn: :popcorn:

9/11 Conspiracy kooks have been screeching for months about the fact that there was no melting of the steel in the WTC towers. They use that to argue that the towers were brought down be controlled demolition. But WAIT!!!!

Now the towers were brought down by THERMITE which burns through steel by *MELTING* it.

These kooks cannot have it both ways. Either there was melting or there wasn't. Hint: There wasn't. There also wasn't any controlled demolition. The towers were brought down by airliner collisions.

Thermite - wikipedia

[petgoat]

39. You're mis-stating the argument.

Conspiracy kooks said the jet fuel could not have melted the steel.

Clearly the sulfidation shown in FEMA Appendix C is the result of
high temperatures.

The stories of molten metal in the basements were well known, but probably
not widely believed.

It was a few months ago that the video of the streams of molten steel pouring
out of WTC2 became widely known.

Melting by jet fuel and melting by thermate are two different animals.

Adjust your blinders

[John Q. Citizen]

41. Your argument is intellectually dishonest. I don't believe the OCT.

I haven't been screeching for months about anything, (well maybe about the lies our government told us about Iraq) but not about 9/11.

I think the people who stridently defend the OCT are a little scared their world view is collapsing.

Keep an open mind. Perhaps it is you who are wrong. Would it be the first time for you?

On the other hand, maybe your right. Either way, it's not worth insulting those who don't agree with you is it?

[madinmaryland]

9. ...

[grytpype]

10. What happened to that guy who did the chicken wire experiment?

Anyone else see that, it was on DU... he set up a little model of a floor of the WTC that had chicken wire walls, and he put a burning pan of kerosine in it, and damned if the wire didn't collapse. Hadn't laughed so hard in awhile.

[Make7]

13. You might be interested in this:

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/04/wings-break-off.html

[LARED]

37. I don't know whether to laugh or cry (nt)

[John Q. Citizen]

42. Do you have a link? n/t

[Make7]

43. I believe this is what he is referring to:

Can a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? An experiment.

- Make7

[John Q. Citizen]

44. So does grytpype have Alzheimer's or just the memory of Scooter

Libby?

Or is he just an obnoxious human being?

[Make7]

49. I'm not a doctor, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know him.

Therefore I am not able to answer those questions. Why are you concerned about his memory?

- Make7

[tabatha]

11. can anyone explain this?

This is one of the most baffling pictures I have ever seen:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Scroll down to section titled:
9. Rapid Collapses and Conservation of Momentum and Energy

and look at the picture in this section, and explain how the top falling section (30 floors) could turn into powder in mid-air. Also, after falling off, why would the rest of the building crumble?

[longship]

12. Ummmm. Let me think....

What do you expect? That the top 30 floors land on the ground intact?
Do you really expect a 30 floor tall building to remain intact after falling 1000 feet? Do you know anything that would not be smashed to smithereens after falling like that?

Do you really expect a 30 story section of a building to remain intact while it tumbles in mid-air? Have you even considered the magnitude of the forces on the structure as it accelerates downward? Also, it started the plunge by toppling to one side. Do you have any idea what that would do to a building that was engineered to exist while standing erect?

[dailykoff]

15. Yes, it should have landed intact,

probably on the roof of a neighboring building.

Highrises are built to withstand tremendous lateral as well as gravity loads, a fact which eludes the army of coincidence theorists who believe anything printed in the New York Times.

[hack89]

19. They withstand lateral loads as long as they are structurally intact..

it was not structurally intact - that section was subjected to forces it was never designed to withstand as it was pulled in many different directions.

[dailykoff]

20. And what strange new force would that be?

Gravity, perhaps?

:crazy:

[hack89]

31. You can't be serious,

the top section was not cleanly severed from the rest of the tower - it was violently twisted and ripped off as it collapsed asymmetrically. To equate those forces with the lateral forces generated by the wind is ludicrous.

[dailykoff]

33. You're right. Neither wind nor gravity

could produce anything close to the forces that destroyed the towers on 9/11.

Congratulations.

[hack89]

34. This must be an act...

no one could be so dense.

End of thread - you win - bye

[dailykoff]

35. Thanks, nice to see you finally got it. (n/t)

[Make7]

36. self - delete ( n/t )

[hack89]

14. How much did that top section weigh?

and how much energy and momentum did it have when it smashed into the rest of the building beneath it?

[dailykoff]

16. Obviously it didn't smash into the lower floors. (n/t)

[hack89]

18. Care to elaborate? nt

[dailykoff]

21. The block disintegrates in mid-air.

Watch one of the videos if you don't remember.

But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12)

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[hack89]

22. So that made it weightless? nt

[hack89]

23. So that made it weightless? nt

[Make7]

25. Check out the first video on this page:

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem5

It definitely looks like the top portion is smashing into the bottom. (I explained it just for you.)

- Make7

[longship]

17. Bingo!

Your explanation is better than mine. I was thinking about the forces on the building section as it fell and ignored the fact that had to fall into the lower building sections as well.

Thanks for this. Will be better equipped next time this comes up. (which it will, these MIHOPers never stop)

[orleans]

24. i can't believe the majority of posts on this thread!

if they think this is so ridiculous why do they keep coming back here to post? i don't get it.

it's like a freakin gang bang!

(i don't go into the religious forum and start talking about what a bunch of crap it is--i'm not that religious and so basically i'm not interested in the forum--why would i go in there and start insulting people for believing something different than i do; why would i go in there and keep trying to convince them to believe something different? how would that benefit me?)

i saw steven jones on the cspan show

i'll watch this video later.
thanks for posting the link

[Junkdrawer]

26. Very interesting. The word thermite seems to cause as hot a reaction...

as thermite itself.

[whistle]

28. Thanks, and pls let me know what you think after you've had a

...chance to look at the video

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Plenty of atheists post in the religious forum. n/t

[mhatrw]

40. That makes sense.

However, it makes no sense that anyone who despises all the heinous crimes and policies that have resulted from the oft-repeated and catch-all "9/11 Changes Everything" meme would make it his or her hobby (day after day, month after month and year after year) to disparage any and all who rationally seek to cast doubt on the official 9/11 narrative.

[John Q. Citizen]

48. And plenty who believe in ID theory post in the 9/11 forum.

You know, Intelligent Demolition. They think god made those 3 building fall almost straight down on the same day.

What they lack in scientific training thay make up for with faith in the bush administration to tell them the truth.

Sad but true.

[quickesst]

30. Sounds like...

a mixture of desperation and really bad sex. Next time guys, bring a towel. It's getting messy down here. Thanks.
quickesst

[orleans]

32. gross. thanks for the disgusting moment

:sarcasm:

[mirandapriestly]

47. Very unattractive visual, but

spot on

[mirandapriestly]

45. They are trying to inhibit conversation

Only 11% of DU believes the OCT, and that scares them.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

46. One of the Official Tinhatters DOES

post as an atheist on the religious forum, I kid you not...

[whistle]

27. Okay, thank you moderators for moving this to the correct forum

[wildbilln864]

51. yes...

I'm a kicking!

[whistle]

53. Update to my post....

<snip>
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
By Prof. Steven E. Jones
Physicist and Archaeometrist

<The paper (below) has undergone modifications and a second set of peer reviews and has been accepted for publication in a volume edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, 9/11 And The American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, and also in Global Outlook, and is published here by kind permission of the editors.>

ABSTRACT

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.

<snip>

Conclusions

I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the “final” reports funded by the US government. I have also presented multiple evidences for an alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, hundreds of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives. And high-temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed large pools of molten metal, under both Towers and WTC 7, and the sulfidation of structural steel. The controlled-demolition hypothesis cannot be dismissed as "junk science" because it better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony. It ought to be seriously (scientifically) investigated and debated.

A truly independent, cross-disciplinary, international panel should be formed. Such a panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. If possible it would question, under oath, the officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed.
None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.

And that fact should be of great concern to Americans. (Ryan, 2004). Clearly, we must find out what really caused the WTC skyscrapers to collapse as they did. The implications of what happened on 9/11/2001 clearly supercede partisan politics. Physics sheds light on the issue which we ignore to our peril as we contemplate the wars that have been and may yet be justified on the basis of the 9/11 tragedy and its "official" interpretation.

To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video recordings – acquired mostly by private parties – which it admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81). Evidence relating to WTC 7 and its mysterious collapse must not be held back. In particular, photos and analyses of the molten metal observed in the basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the international community of scientists and engineers immediately. Therefore, along with others, I call for the release of these and all relevant data for scrutiny by a cross-disciplinary, international team of researchers. The explosive-demolition hypothesis will be considered: all options will be on the table.
<more>
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html



<video of Dr Jones seminar in February 2006>
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-steven-jones-utah-seminar-video.html



Updated August 15, 2006:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf

[wildbilln864]

54. kicked...

...just because!