1
1
1
::::::::
This is a quickly composed article, posted as a response to the re-cycled and morphing thermite theory, which has again been "dressed up" in what appears to be an authentic Scientific Paper. As all 9/11 researchers should know, appearances can be deceptive. So, let's scratch the veneer of apparent credibility and look at the evidence and issues Steve Jones and his cohorts won't address.
Could Jones, Harrit et al have published this paper because too many people are finding out about the Hurricane (Erin) parked outside NYC on 9/11? Are they also realising the connection of the effects seen at the WTC to those of the Hutchison Effect:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/
Exactly what is the Bentham Open Journal? It costs $800 to get a paper published on there:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/MSandI.htm
Perhaps it is too much to expect or ask reviewers to look into the background of the evidence as a way of validating the paper.
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/EBM.htm
Though the editor in chief is listed, no other details about reviewers on the editorial board are available – apart from their name and country. I.e. their qualifications and areas of specialism are not listed (at least not on this page).
When studied closely, there is no verifiable evidence that thermite played ANY SIGNIFICANT role in the destruction of the WTC. (It MAY have been used in cutting some of small amounts of remaining steel in the clean up operation). If it were truly significant, why didn't Jones and his team submit his research in their legal challenges to NIST (see below).
2005 - Jones says "thermite carried in in loads"
2006/7 - Jones says "probably thermite AND superthermite"
2008 - Jones says "Paint on thermite"
2009 - Jones says "Active thermitic compounds"
So which one is correct? Or is this "morphing as we go" to string people along - and distract them from the verifiable evidence that thermite/superthermite/nanothermite/DOD thermite/superthermate can never explain - such as
The severe lack of debris:
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=145&Itemid=60
Upside down cars at the WTC
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ1.html#lift
Straight-line hurricane movement
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/pics/erin2001_e.gif
Magnetic field disturbances at the PRECISE moment of "1st impact".
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin5.html
Recently, I compiled a list of questions and comments regarding Steve Jones and his research, and posted them here.
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=222&Itemid=60
I have reproduced slightly modified versions of some of the points here.
1) Steven E Jones and a group of people submitted an RFC to NIST regarding the NCSTAR reports for WTC 1 & 2.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoNISTbyMcIlvaineDoyleJonesRyanGageSTJ.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf
Why do these documents not mention Molten Metal anywhere in them? Why does it not mention Prof Jones OWN thermite tests - which are said to be "conclusive"?
2) On May 8 2008, Prof Steven E Jones suggests the towers could have been destroyed with the help of Paint on Thermite. Why?
3) Can the authors comment on or explain inverted cars near the WTC on 9/11 and the exploding cars reported by witnesses such Patricia Ondrovich and the exploding Scott Packs (oxygen tanks) reported by some firefighters?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ1.html#lift
4) Can the authors comment on the proximity of Hurricane Erin to NYC during the events of 9/11 (was he aware of its proximity and existence?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/
5) Are the authors going to submit a Qui Tam fraud case against NIST's contractors as Professor's Morgan Reynolds and Professor Judy Wood have done (Dr Wood's case is currently under appeal)
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html
Now let's have a look at some other things that Dr Steve Jones has suggested.
Steve Jones suggests 9/11 Truthers should irradiate themselves:
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=60
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h71WsJMGdI8
30:05 -Jones: OK. One other exercise is that we have learned that with evidence we can learn a great deal so if there is an event and - we won't even name a cit lets just say an American city - blamed on Iran, certainly there will be 9/11 truthers nearby and I hope they realize the importance of collecting a sample [right] whether that's dust ... [also radiation] right - having a radiation detector handy if you've got one – whether it's Geiger - if you send me a sample I'd be glad to look at it and I'm sure you would too, Bill. So, if there is such an event the point – the reason I'm emphasizing this is because it's a bit of a warning if there are perpetrators thinking about – such another 9/11 they'd better think twice because 9/11 truthers are out there – we're watching. We will get samples – we know what to do – evidence-based studies – we can do very quickly and we can put an end to lies - on the next 9/11 if it [inaudible] ... which I hope we'll avoid... is what I'm trying to say...
Steve Jones Denies that 70 stories of WTC Steel Turned to Dust - it "Shook and Fell"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9Iv_4ZfNI
Steven Jones Suggests it's Safe to Dip Wet Fingers in Molten Metal (what has this got to do with what happened at the WTC)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tou71StrOb0
It's ALL about the Cover up of FREE ENERGY. But some people who were previously involved in the Cold Fusion cover up don't want you to realise that.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/
