So Now Professor Jones Agrees with Me?

by Scott Creighton

For months I have been taking hits from my colleagues in the Truth movement for my stand on the Jones, Harrit, Roberts paper “Active Thermetic Material…“.

I have stated, for the record and in no uncertain terms, that their “nano-thermetic material” could not have been what pulverized the floor systems and was probably not what was used as cutter charges.

I have theorized a rational, logic based hypothesis for exactly what kind of explosive was used as the primary high-explosive in the demolition of the Trade Centers, and have even produced detailed drawings and schematics to illustrate my point.

Now guess who agrees with me?  Prof. Steven Jones does. Well, at least partly.

Too bad he didn’t listen a year and a half ago, to me or the others who also suggested more conventional explosives were used to bring down the towers.  Think of where we would be now.

For months I have been raked over the coals for daring to question the viability of Jim Hoffman’s ridiculous “Plausible Demolition Hypothesis” paper, in which he theorized hundreds of illegal immigrants ran around at break neck speeds setting 1.8 million “nano-thermite ceiling tile bombs” and scores of high-explosive cutter charges cleverly disguised (in active offices) … as fire extinguishers.

My contention has been, as it is now, that the Twin Towers were professionally demolished by an accomplished demolition contractor using conventional high explosives commonly used in the industry.  My contention has always been, as it is now, that we MUST test for residual trace elements of the most commonly used high explosives FIRST in a rational and scientific manner.

And though this is certainly not the stuff of your standard ‘disinformation” agent hypothesizing about “TV Fakery” and “Ray beams from Space”, I have been demonized as such for simply suggesting this kind of logic based direction for a new investigation.

I have stated that “Nano-thermite”, if it even exists in any kind of real, stand alone, high-explosive commercial grade form, could not have been used to demolish the floor systems of the Twin Towers.  The “Super Match” that Jones continually refers to is nothing more than an incendiary triggering device for fireworks and explosives.  But unto itself, it is NOT a high explosive, and therefore incapable of creating a concussion wave. Simply doesn’t burn fast enough.

The intriguing studies Jones and others offer as to the mixing of the nano-thermite with organics in order to help create the concussion wave effect is certainly interesting, but, with all the elements that were involved in a demolition such as this one, and all the things that were to hang in the balance, I said before a year and a half ago to Prof. Jones, and I will say again now… no demolition expert would ever put such an untested and unreliable material into this equation with so much riding on it. The point of a controlled demolition is ‘control”.  Without that, you have nothing.

I have stated time and time again that this Jones, Roberts, Harrit paper is NOT what they themselves have labeled “the Loaded Gun” of the Truth Movement (a little humility next time, perhaps?).  Testing for explosives residues in the dust samples is imperative to the Truth movement. For this I have been relegated to the fringes of the fringe.

Well, perhaps an email that Jones himself wrote in March to a National Geographic producer and published this afternoon on 9/11 Blogger would be of interest to my detractors.

… Next, if you succeed in getting a few of the “super-thermite matches,” I propose to send you the complete paper that we have — which includes a discussion of these matches along with their potential usage on 9/11. I think that super-thermite “matches” of this type could very well have been used to trigger more conventional explosives such as C4 in the WTC buildings.

… A real demonstration would involve a C4 shaped charge applied to a steel column, with the cutter charge ignited by a highly-reliable super-thermite match (in turn triggered using a remote radio signal).

These experiments would test my hypothesis.

… About C4, we have not yet looked for residues and indeed these will be difficult to find UNLESS there was a taggant, which is unlikely (if my hypothesis of out-sourced production of C4 and probably super-thermite matches is correct…)  J0nes from email he published on 9/11 Blogger

Now it would appear that Prof. Jones is suggesting that he and Harrit and Roberts (remember, Gregg Roberts flat out refused my requst a year ago to test for these very same residual trace elements that Jones is trying to tell the producer of the National Geographic show HE should test for…) found 10 tons of these in the dust from Ground Zero… 10 tons at least.  Neils Harrit recently has claimed in a Russia Today interview that there were “hundreds of tons” of this material, still unexploded mind you, in the dust at Ground Zero.

As a side note, the Harrit, Jones, Roberts paper appears to suddenly be “unavailable” on the Bentham site.

I will give Jones credit for this much, his paper did have one paragraph where they clearly state that it is possible that the “nano-thermite” was used as an electric match to ignite other conventional explosives.  Of course, he did go on to say they didn’t test for conventional explosive residues because they “didn’t think it looked like a conventional demolition”.

However, Jones’ letter to the National Geographic producer then takes a rather disturbing turn for the worst.

Perhaps Jones suggests a means by which to test his hypothesis once again. This time, he suggests sending some of these electric matches to one of his co-authors of the original “Active Thermetic Material” paper (just HAPPENS to be at BYU (where Jones himself enjoys and early retirement)) as an “independent” lab…

Ask two independent laboratories to do SEM/EDS and DSC analyses as described in our paper on the super-thermite material contained in these matches. The results would then be compared carefully with those already obtained on red chips found in the WTC dust.
One of these labs could be BYU/Dr. Farrer if you wish, since he has analyzed the red chips found in the WTC dust and could act very quickly. (BYU requires that he be paid for any 9/11 research now.) Such analyses are worthy of scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal (unlike placing bags of commercial thermite next to steel columns)   Jones

Now how on earth would that be considered an “independent” lab, Professor Jones?

And lets jump into another thing here Professor Jones. Though I am quite pleased that you seem to be moving toward freeing your babbling herd from parroting the “nano-thermite” only talking point (I just got raked by a site that swears that your super-duper-magic-thermite is the ONLY thing used to blow up the towers… thanks to your equally ridiculous “sol gel” application theory.  Honestly… “spraying” high explosives on the ceilings of buildings and then ramming jets into just those floors? Was that a joke, or what?  Well, I guess it was better than 1.8 million “ceiling tile bombs”.), your attempt to direct the Truth movement to the relatively unused in commercial demolition,  “C4”, is a little upsetting.

For those of you who don’t know, C4 is primarily a military grade explosive, mostly RDX, with a plasticizer to make it more malleable. But of course, there is no reason for that kind of aspect to demolitions charges.

RDX is used in linear shaped charges in the demolition industry and testing for the residual trace elements of RDX in the dust that Jones himself is in possession of, would be a good idea.

Also a good idea would be to test for the presence of the residual trace elements of PETN, the most commonly used high explosive in the demolition industry, and one of the most powerful high explosives around.

Of course, I have suggested this course of action to Jones himself several times, and to his associate, Gregg Roberts as well to no avail.  At that time they seemed to think, at least Roberts did, that a “political” solution was the more usefull direction to take.

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

Perhaps the good professor will now reconsider my requests, now that he has gone so far as to openly admit the “smoking gun’ they are looking for is in fact trace residual elements of more conventional high explosives.

Perhaps the good professor would be so kind as to address this discussion here, as that 9/11 blogger banned me from discussion on their site months ago when I suggested nano-thermite alone couldn’t have brought down the towers.

I suppose that is just wishful thinking.

But just so the good professor knows, there are independent labs (I mean, really “independent”, Prof Jones) connected with the mining industry that could test the Ground Zero dust for trace elements of explosive residues.

Not only does the mining industry have to test for these kinds of things, but so to does the fire investigations units of nearly every single county and city in this country.  Explosives and accelerants are commonly used in criminal activities such as insurance fraud (hi there Mr. Silverstein…) and therefore testing facilities are not hard to come by.

I would suggest perhaps to the good professor, that these are the first types of tests that need to be conducted.  Don’t worry so much about matching the electric match to your “red/grey” chips.  That would simply be yet another waste of 6 months.  6 months we just don’t have anymore.

In fact, these little distractions are starting to sound like the efforts of the Bush administration to keep us in the Iraq more… “just 6 more months”… “just 6 more months”… “give the surge time to work”…

But I digress…

It should be enough for me to bask in the moment that I may have heard the very last of the “sol gel” spray on high-explosive nano-thermite impact zone crap.  Another “ray-beam from space” story bites the bullet with the  “illegal aliens planting nano-themite ceiling tile bombs” tale.

Of course now I still have to deal with “100s of tons” of unexploded electric matches… but at least we’re headed in the right direction.

14 Responses

  1. scott,

    this may be off your subject, but your discussion made me curious.

    What explosive is used by the Iraqis in their IED’s ?

    I thought these were able to lift tanks and turn them on their backs. They do not have access to c-4 do they?

    • Steve:

      IED stands for Improvised Explosive Devices, that means, for the most part, they take what they can get their hands on and turn it into a bomb. Though I am certainly no expert, I would imagine that sometimes they get their hands on some pretty mean stuff… C4 is certainly possible.

      It has been argued that the large stockpiles of Iraqi munitions that weren’t guarded right after the fall of Saddam turned into many of the early IEDs that terrorized out troops so much in the early years of the occupation. Again you would have to read Gardner’s stuff on that. I don’t know.

      This is a pic of some of these munitions collected after a raid in Iraq. You can see the “improvised” nature of them.

      Now of course the most effective and therefore the most dangerous of these devices would be the Explosively Formed Penetrator, which ironically is commonly used in the mining and oil business…

      What is special about this weapon is not so much that it is a shaped charge, though it is, but that the lid that seals the explosive becomes a self forming projectile mid flight. That projectile, traveling at a hyper-velocity, can penetrate almost any armor, depending of course on the explosive charge that it comes from.

      They used them in WWII, according to Wiki. Any high-explosive will do.

      Sometime the IEDs are simply fertilizer. Homemade stuff like that used by our homegrown terrorists McViegh and his pals. Again, I don’t know how to build an IED and I don’t forsee any reason to learn in the foreseeable future, but as too your question, i don’t know. I would guess, HMX or RDX or even PETN… whatever warhead or mortar round they have lying around at the time.

  2. Here’s a pdf from the DOD showing sol gel energetics. Quite plausible to coat the floor pans with this stuff under the guise of asbestos abatement. It’s cheap too. That’s why they found so much of it.

    I agree that Hoffman’s ceiling tile scenario is absurd. Fire extinguishers? Please.

    Kevin Ryan has done some good work on this nano thermite sol gel hypothesis, you should read it.

    • Gagger;

      You know, I don’t really have that much against the “sol gel” application as a concept. The problem lies in the use of it for this specific job. This is murder. And if we are correct, it was more than likely designed by a controlled demolition expert. I don’t think a military specialist could have dropped Building 7 like that and for that matter, I don’t think the average demolitions special op would have known how to push the mass of the Towers outside of the footprint so expertly in order to better control 110 floors of falling debris. This was designed by someone who knew a great deal about the practice of explosive demolitions.

      It is that fact more than any other really that makes me shy away from the “sol gel” application. And I will tell you why.

      It’s because in a working envirnment, in the offices of the trade center, no application process could have been even enough up inside the tight confines of the trusses, the transverse trusses, and the air ducts, the cable chases, and the guide wires that held up the ceiling tiles.

      How could they have hoped to get an even dispersal of the high explosive?

      I don’t think they could, and even IF they could, I doubt very much that any demolitions expert would have trusted the process to have chosen to use it.

      At this point, Jones is saying that it may have been just used as an electric match. I think maybe I would have to agree. I remember (perhaps it was Kevin Ryan?) someone suggesting that the material could have been painted on steel columns and ignited like that… that may have been possible.

      But I just think that especially in the controlled demolition industry, and with all that was riding on this project, that the sprayed on application is just a little too random for anyone too have agreed to it in the first place. I could be wrong….

  3. Wyllo:

    Jones always claimed that Nano termite was used. That they tested it POSITIVE.

    He and his parthers proved wIhout a reazonable doubt : EXPLOSIVES WERE USED.

    You stayed he was a disinfo Agent.

    He deserves our respect for doing so.

    • Hi lennon;

      Jones didn’t “always” claim it was “nano thermite”… his first work dealing with this stuff talked about “thermite”. Let’s be honest. That was his first claim, and he and some guys even went to that Burning Man show with a 9/11 Truth sign years ago, with the same “commercial thermite” Jones just abused the producer about using, and he and his guys tried to prove the thermite could take out a steel sign… remember that? I do. It failed. For much the same reason that the National Geographic hit piece demonstration failed. Thermite is gravity driven…

      Then Jones went with the therMATE for a while because people started pointing out the sulfur content in the “iron rich spheres”… (High Density Low Allow steel like the Trusses were made of, has sulfur in it, and other things… like silicone)…

      Now we have “nano-thermite”… well, that’s all well and good… but think about it… Jones himself has estimated about 10 tons of the UNREACTED stuff was found in the dust…. 10 tons? of electric matches? Of unignited electric matches? That’s a little high, don’t you think?

      Neils just went on Russia Today and said that there were ‘hundreds and hundreds” of tons of this stuff in the dust…

      Hundreds of tons of electric matches? Hundreds of TONS of UNREACTED electric matches?

      I understand how you feel. I don’t want to do any harm to the man or his work. All I ask is for people in the TRUTH movement to just THINK about that for a minute. Are 10 tons of electric matches even possible, not to mention unlikely? How about “hundreds and hundreds” of tons?

      And I want you to think about one more thing, lennon…. I want you to think about this real hard… how does the presence of an unexploded pyrotechnic material PROVE explosives were used?

      The only thing it PROVES beyond a reasonable doubt, is that 10 tons or “hundreds and hundreds” of tons of that stuff WASN’T used… and we know that because…. it’s STILL there…

      His attempt might be to provide CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that the electric matches were present at the scene, but that is a far cry from finding the residue of EXPLODED material… THAT is proof beyond ANY doubt that explosives were USED… and not just PRESENT…

      To Jones’ credit, he does say that tests for conventional explosives should be undertaken, and I have made mention of this before… he said it in the paper and he said it again in the emails he published on Blogger.

      I know how you feel. The first day I figured out something else was going on with Jones, well just ask the people here, my regulars… I quit this site. I wrote that I was done with this site and the movement in general. it made me sick physically. I’m not going to lie to you. The archives are there, the article is still there. Jones was a hero of mine. I promoted his work without question. Let me just say, it wasn’t the best weekend I have had in a while…

      I don’t want anyone to feel that way. Least of all my regulars.

      Why is Jones putting this thread up? Why is he jumping the shark, so to speak, and giving people a little insight into his philosophy about C4 really being what brought down the towers as opposed to Harrit’s “hundreds and hundreds of tons”?

      I don’t know.

      I will tell you this. When I first communicated with Jones on Blogger, I think he was generally interested in this line of research… at one time during the emails, he actually offered to help find funding for it, or help sending material samples…

      And in all fairness, I have mentioned this before jlennon08…

      But for some reason, Jones had to get Gregg Roberts in on the emails, just like he did with this producer in this set of emails he published. And it was Roberts who really put his foot down.

      So maybe Jones is trying to tell us something. Maybe Jones is trying to show us something.

      I respect the man. I just won’t put all my faith in any one person these days. i gave up blind faith. I joined the Truth Movement and I thought I was looking for the truth, no matter how much it hurt, no matter where it led.

      But you are right. I shouldn’t have implied that he was a disinfo agent. Based on what I have seen, I think he may have gotten into this for the right reasons and been influenced by Roberts, and Hoffman (did you know they started out together?)…

      Now, if he wants to earn my TRUST again, then he can step forward here and answer this, or better yet, he can ignore me completely and just TEST for the residual trace elements of conventional explosives like PETN and RDX… THAT would be the Steven Jones I remember…

  4. will,

    Tank you for the answer to my previous question.

    I’m sadly not a knowledgable about the movement a you are. And, unfrtunately, not up on the facts.

    I’d like some confirmation about someother questions I’ve had.

    It is my understandng that the claims Prof. Jones ha made about the Tower’sdust isuniquein that he, as far as I can tell, is the only one curious or skeptical about what brought down the Towers. Tat is, there is no one else in the entire country, inside government, outsde governmet, in New York, in some acedemic or FBI lab, anywhere who hasn’t thought to do a study on th piles and piles of mateials to see if they can reproduce the claims of Prof. Jones?

    This puzzles me. Even if Jones comes up with a story, his claim can’t be taken seriously unless it is confirmed by some other research on the residues that reproduce his fndings. If no one else even tries, or is interested, then, Jones might have it right at some point, but it cannot be scientifically confirmed.

    It occurs to me also that unless the resdues wre studied by multple labs, the governmet’s case, that the owers were brought down by planes, could not be scientificaly proven either.

    I thought science had to do with the confirmation of multiple tests. Just because the government says that the most likely reason the owers cae don was the planes, and they can poke holes in other account’s methodologies, doe not mean they have science to back them up. It just means that they have the muscle to prevent anyone from finding out the answers.

    It is my understanding that the decision was made to declare the act of murdering the 3,000 in the Towers an act of war instead of a criminal evet, and therefore, no criminal investigation was made. The residal steel and dust was carted off to China or dropped into the ocean whereno one could then, at some later date, do any criminal or scientific rsearch on it.

    Who made this decision? Is there some story about this? Is it mentioned in the 9-11 report? I have to say, I don’t have that report. But I haven’t heard tell anything about that issue.

    I watch a few of the CSI shows. If somene comes ontyo the crime sceneand sarts telling th crew that they don’t have to gather evidence because the bigger officials and more important power brokers have made the determination that no crime was committed, the show’s detectives wuld have thrown a fit. Didn’t detectives all over the country throw a similar fit at the thought that all the Tower’s evidence was boxed up before being examine or tested and dumped into the ocean?

    You have made a good point that we need to be careful about how we examine the tiny amount of evidence someone was able to stea from the crime scene before the evidence police caught them. But, isn’t the fact that no science can confirm one story or the other because the evidence was tampered with just as much an issue to bring out?

  5. Banned from 911blogger were you now Scott…

    Right or not, your points now would stimulate thought and dialog over there and be interesting to say the least.

    But you know those folks have always tended to steer the ship in certain directions.

    Why is that?

    • It used to be that the strongest parts of our case were Building 7, controlled demolition of the towers, and the missing plane at the Pentagon…

      Systematically all of those parts of our movement have been made to be “taboo” by a certain element of the Truth movement. Jim Hoffman is one of the first “Gate-keepers” of the movement, but there have been others.

      Hoffman pioneered the Pentagon OCT support chapter in the Truth Movement. He did so by using the “evidence” provided by the previous administration in the “20th hijacker trials”… he in fact, steered the Truth community by using “evidence” from the Federal Government on his site.

      Hoffman’s ‘Plausible Demolition Hypothesis” was a joke. I tore it up. But the funny thing is, he came out with it (showing how the Jones/Harrit nano-thermite could bring down the Towers…) the VERY SAME DAY that the Jones/Harrit paper came out…

      When I read his thesis, I pointed out some serious flaws in it to him… and he actually made some changes…

      Scholars for 911 Truth sent me some emails when I sent in my findings… turns out, that organization is run by his wife or something… Victrinox… or something like that… i still have the emails…

      Anyway, he changed some stuff in his paper, based on what I wrote him…

      Long story short… his papers (plural) coming out the SAME DAY as the Jones paper means that he had them prior to the Jones paper being published in the Bentham Press vanity publishing house…

      Why is that?

      Because, Gregg Roberts, also an author of the paper and the guy who runs AE911Truth got his start… with Hoffman… a man who uses the Federal Goernment’s “evidence” to prove a 157 hit the Pentagon…

      Heres the thing… theres a guy who runs Op Ed news… he is a gate-keeper for the “progresives”… he also runs a motivational speaker type business where he teaches people how to ‘control the story”… and that is what is happening in the Truth movement… a small group of people have worked diligently to rise to positions of authority in certain sites and from there they attempt to control the story…

      I mean, look at Jon Gold at blogger… he just went off on a tirade because he can’t figure out why people are still determined to discuss controlled demolition when, as he puts it, “I have been telling them for so long that we should focus on other things”…

      They actually freely admit they are doing everything they can to “control the story”… and that is because 911 Blogger is not really a Truth site… it may have started out as one… but that isn’t what it is now.

      They avoid discussion of Mossad involvement, the ridicule any suggestion that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and they used to avoid even talking about Building 7.

      Some say this little group at Blogger (and the same is true for Truth Action as well) seems to want desperately to push “the Muslims did it” theories over anything else… and I for one have to agree…

      It was told to me once by a local leader in the Truth Movement that I shouldn’t trust ANYONE who rises to any kind of authoritative position in this movement. She seemed to feel that because of the importance to those involved, anyone gaining any kind of real attention in the movement would eventually be approached, and therefore they should ALL be suspect…

      She quit the movement for the most part while working on her recent FEMA contract…

      Go figure…

  6. Take a look at the latest Bollyn article. It’s Jones related with his speculations. Bollyn is always interesting but also always suspect.

    Any thoughts?

    • Is that the one where he theorizes about the exploding floor tiles? See, everyone is having a hard time trying to fit the events to the nano-thermite theory… It’s kinda like those people who suggest the asbestos abatement contract is when they used the “sol gel” to coat the underside of the floors with the nanothermite…

      That’s all well and good, but if you look at the floors they did it too, they only did it to a small percentage of the floors.

      So how did the 100 other floors per building blow up?

      The problem with the linoleum story is that most floors had carpet. and of course, the obvious problem is the idea that someone would spray high explosives… on the floors of an active office… doesn’t work that way…. seems like a kind of Nickelodeon theory if you ask me…

  7. Willy don’t mean to off topic but did you watch the 911 program they had on TV the other day. In my opinion this is a good thing,people I know are now coming to me and asking questions. And I am giving them all of your info that I have printed up, and my truth movement is in high gear.

    Thank you

    • good for you Free… I didn’t see it, but I watched clips of it. It is ridiculous from what I have seen so far…

      give me a day, and I will have something else you can print up for them. this one is going to be fun…

  8. The tip of each WTC rooftop antenna moved is the directions of the fall of each building watching this point again and again it seems jerky an average indicator of roof movement at best but still jerking back and forward as it goes down, these bumps/jerks could also show up on siezmographs as explosions?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: