New Evidence Proves Thermate at WTC »
Posted by: entropy 1 year, 3 months ago385 Comments Report this Story
"Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site proves thermate, proves collapse of twin towers was an act of deliberate arson. Professor Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, but the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle
Read Full Story at prisonplanet.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 385
-
0%
entropy1 year, 3 months ago
"So having moved from a hypothesis that thermate was used to bring down the towers from using video footage and debunking the aluminum explanation of NIST, Jones now has empirical scientific proof, undertaken under laboratory conditions, that thermate was indeed used as an artificial explosive at the World Trade Center.
We are issuing a challenge to Popular Mechanics to rebut Professor Jones' analysis of the sphere samples and the clear evidence of thermate at the World Trade Center. Address the focused scientific proof without resorting to ad hominem attacks or straying off topic."
~PrisonPlanet.com
Reply-
0%
DrHansZarkov1 year, 3 months ago
I am a physicist at a state university and do research for the Dept of Energy at a national lab. I can tell you point blank that almost all physicists doubt Jones' assertion. The fact is that nearly all physicists believe there is no conspiracy here.
Jones' claim is based on electron microscopy....Electron microscopes are extremely common peices of lab equipment as there are literally thousands of them across the nation. For example, almost every large university has at least one or more electron microscopes. Therefore there are literally thousands of researchers, profs and grad students across the nation who could confirm his "proof" and support his claims! Nobody has because his explaination is bunk, plain and simple.
Properly conducted research is published in peer reviewed journals, not on blogs and conspiracy theorist sites. Sorry guys, but there's no "smoking gun" here.
Reply-
80%
KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
And there is a concensus of thousands of scientists that Jones is nuts....just like AlGore
Reply-
-
83%
nakedtruth1 year, 3 months ago
You've got you're facts exactly backwards. Gore's film ignores the facts like 1) global warming is occurring on Mars and 2) polar bears can swim.
By contrast Stephen Jones has done a thoughtful and careful analysis of actual evidence from the WTC. You just don't like it because it disturbs your world view. Kerosene fires simply aren't strong enough to melt steel. And the NIST publicly backed off of the fake "pancake theory" yet came up with something even more exotic. Plus WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, only had minimal damage from falling debris, yet still fell at near free fall speed.
Reply-
100%
torrent291 year, 3 months ago
*SIGH*
I mean honestly, how many times do we have to give this a going over for you twoofers?
The steel was never melted, but it does lost its structural integrity. This is quite easily seen in the pictures taken from the site.
http://debunking911.com/sag.ht1.jpg
As you can see the floors were in pretty dismal shape. Now remember back to the incident a few weeks ago in California that pretty much proved that what happened at the WTC can happen in other locations.
Now further more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
Watch this video.
Or read the accounts of the FDNY chief:
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine...
Or of Captain Boyle:
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine...
Clearly there was significant damage done to Building #7 and this is confirmed by the video and by the accounts of the FDNY.
So spare me the 911 twoofers misinformation.
Reply-
0%
nakedtruth1 year, 3 months ago
*SIGH* I've seen your list of BS debunking before torrent. You really aren't impressing anyone but yourself. You ignore the following obvious facts.
1) Molten metal WAS seen in the wreckage of the WTC. The NASA thermal imaging proves that.
http://www.theseliberties.net/thermaltower.jpg
Now, since you've just admitted that kerosene fire isn't hot enough to do that, what was?
2) You're "hanging floor sag" photo doesn't prove jack. As you well know the WTC wasn't held up by floors. It was held up by steel columns.
3) The California incident involved gasoline fire. As you well know, or should now, gasoline burns at a MUCH higher temperature than does kerosone. According to your god Popular Mechanics, kerosene burns at around 800 degrees F. By contrast gasoline burns over 2,000 degrees F. Now the METLING point of steel is about 2,500 degrees F.
We both know that kerosene fire couldn't do that
Reply-
100%
torrent291 year, 3 months ago
1. The molten metal and such proves pretty much nothing. Since its already been determined to be *gasp* Aluminum and that there are a variety of things in the tower that could've formed the motlen metal that was discovered. Most real researchers have recognized it to be aluminum. I'd also like to point out that Thermite doesn't melt metal either. So there goes that theory as well.
2. Actually the steel was stressed from the heat, the steel became warped. http://debunking911.com/pivot.jpg as this photo clearly shows the tower listing forward as a result of the fires and the weakening steel.
3. Now again, this was not kerosene, but jet fuel which burns at 800 to 1500 degrees. Steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees. Now further more this was not the only thing burning inside of there. Now bear in mind as well that the fireproofing most likely came off leaving the steel that much more vulnerable.
In sum: Try again.
Reply-
0%
nakedtruth1 year, 3 months ago
Wrong Torrent. 1) You really need to go back and take physics. The thermal imaging from NASA showed temperatures HIGHER than that of molten aluminum. Further more THIS is not aluminum.
http://www.911blogger.com/uploaded_images/glowi...
2) Don't make me laugh. That's an image taken as the tower was collapsing. That's due to GRAVITY and NOT "warped steel". TRY AGAIN.
3) Non sequitur. You were stupidly comparing a gasoline fire to a kerosene fire. They are both...fire. There the comparison ends. You simply can't HONESTLY take what happened California and compare that to 9/11 since the fires burned at much different temperatures. Try again.
Reply-
33%
torrent291 year, 3 months ago
1. Yes and if you had read the popular mechanics article that you claim to have read you would note that there were pockets of fire that went much higher then 1800 degrees. Also the picture you showed me, not much there, someone picking up a glowing hot beam which is pretty clearly not molten, since you know molten steel, it does this runny thing, you know forms pools and such.
2. Of course it was a picture of it collapsing, listing forward towards the angle of the crash, and more importantly towards the weakened steel structure.
http://debunking911.com/collapsesim.jpg
3. Of course I can, and the analogy holds easily. Fire weakened the steel structure in both instances. You cannot refute that. What fueled the fire may not be the same, but the result was the same.
I'll give you bonus points for being smarter then half of the 911 cultists on this board, but you still need to do a bit more research in areas outside of just 911 twoof.
Reply-
33%
nakedtruth1 year, 3 months ago
1) According to Popular Mechanics. But they made that claim without any proof. And that claim contrasts with this image.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos...
Also according to tapes the firefighers in WTC 7 said there were only "two small pockets of fire" which they said they could easily put out. And Sylverstein's own insurance company report said that the fires in WTC 7 were less intense than regular office fires.
2) That's only YOUR INTEPRETATION of the picture. Proof would be a picture of the building listing long BEFORE it started to collapse.
3) The analogy does not hold and you're making a fool of yourself trying to force it to hold. You're comparing apples and oranges. And your "collapse sim" pic isn't convincing either. You yourself have rejected the "pancake theory" but NOVA did a "sim" of that.
Reply-
100%
nakedtruth1 year, 3 months ago
I was running out of characters but I want to hammer more on the "gasoline versus kerosene" theme. The bottom line is that this is a STUPID argument! Even if I believed the official story I wouldn't use that argument. You're trying to compare a fire that's almost hot enough to MELT steel with one that at best is only hot enough to WEAKEN steel and then jump to the bizzare conclusion that one incident proves the other. You're smarter than that...or you should be. Yes, clearly if the Boeings had been flying on gasoline than the fires would have been possibly close to the melting point of steel. (Of course that still ignores the fact that most of the jet fuel was burned up in the initial explosion OUTSIDE of the towers and that what was left was an oxygen starved fire as shown by the thick black smoke. But hey, I'm feeling generous.) Tell you what. Find me a story about a steel structure collapsing from a kerosene fire and get back to us.
Reply-
86%
torrent291 year, 3 months ago
I'll point out again, that the jet fuel fire burns considerably higher then what you are giving it credit for. In the San Francisco case, the fire was mainly gasoline. In the other cases, you had an almost furnance like condition inside of the building with multiple items adding to the flame.
If you had read the same report in Popular Mechanics then you would know that there temperatures recorded in the building in excess of 1800 degrees. Jet fuel ignited the original fire, but there was considerable more items within the building that contributed to its spread.
Reply-
86%
nakedtruth1 year, 3 months ago
{{I'll point out again, that the jet fuel fire burns considerably higher then what you are giving it credit for.}}
That's NOT true and you KNOW it! I have not argued with your jet fuel range. But it's MUCH MUCH lower than gasoline. That's a simple fact. If you can't acknowledge that then you aren't really debating but simply taking a religious stance.
Reply
-
-
-
63%
torrent291 year, 3 months ago
Tch tch. That picture is a snapshot and she is very clearly not near any fire. "The persons seen were away from any strong heat source and most likely in an area that at the time was a point where the air for combustion was being drawn into the building to support the fires."
You are using only one bit of evidence and ignoring the wealth of the evidence to the contrary about what was happening in WTC7. The words of the Deputy chief:
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine...
Words of Captain Boyle: http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine...
Evidence from the scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
And now we mix in insurance fraud into the mix.
2. Actually the same can be said in reverse, that is nothing more then your interpretation of what you think it should've looked like. Then again better people then you and I have looked at the evidence and determined that this what occured. You know, peer review and all.
Reply-
0%
jaspersneed1 year, 3 months ago
I was wondering, is your compensation for shilling for Cheney and Bush a flat stipend, or do you get a piece rate?
Reply -
50%
nakedtruth1 year, 3 months ago
{{Tch tch. That picture is a snapshot and she is very clearly not near any fire.}}
That's the point dumbass. Most of the WTC fire was in the initial explosion OUTSIDE of the towers.
Reply
-
-
100%
torrent291 year, 3 months ago
3. The analogy holds very easily for the reasons outlined above. Fire weakened the structure of the highway just like fire weakened the structure of the building. You may not like it because it proves that it can happen but yet it did. There are several other factors to take into account too. The fire in San Francisco burned in the opening, whereas the fire in the tower was in a very small and tight space.
What is important here, isn't what composed the fire, it is that fire can weaken the structural integrity of steel.
Reply
-
-
0%
AnvilHead1 year, 3 months ago
Steel doesn't melt at 1800 degrees F, it's only a little higher than hardening temp for most mild steels.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
jeffery11 year, 3 months ago
nakedtruth,
If you weren't so ideological you'd be able to see that the raw CO2 and temperature data have deviated upward since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution indicating that we are the cause of global warming here on EARTH. NASA scientists and others indicate that solar caused warming has been overridden by human caused greehouse gases. Also, the sun is at a solr activity minimum. So, what is happening on Mars may very well have to do with natural factors but not here on earth.
Also, polar bears are not pelagic and require ice floes; Polar bears are not whales and require ice floes survive. Just because you may able to swim does not men you'd survive in the middle of the ocean for very long.
As for the WTC, I'll let scientists argue this out. Some good peer reviewed studies will prove far more enlightening than nonsense from the likes of you.
Reply-
100%
nakedtruth1 year, 3 months ago
Jeffery, if you weren't so blind you'd know that I'm not coming at this from an ideological perspective. If I was being "ideological" I would either bash Bush and support Gore, or I'd bash Gore and support Bush. I'm bashing BOTH!
Tell me this. Is man made CO2 making it's way to Mars? If yes how? If no then why is Mars heating up? Answer? It's the SUN! The sun is hotter than it's been in recorded history. Read this article taken from NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC! That's hardly an "ideological" magazine.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02...
Here's another article.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~kaisler/articles/eve...
And another. http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_s...
I USED to believe global warming years ago. Then I learned the facts. Finally even if GW were true, why is Al Gore wasting electricity? http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_s...
Reply
-
-
-
0%
nakedtruth1 year, 3 months ago
I didn't say they said it was correct. Maybe you thought that's what I meant by "backed off" but it wasn't. The official 9/11 commission report supported the pancake theory. (Sorry if you don't like the term theory. That was their idea, not mine.) Anyway if you prefer I'll rephrase my earlier statement to "NIST debunked the ridiculous pancake theory which was in the official report".
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
invest071 year, 3 months ago
The twin towers were actually brought down by Sasquatch. After they fell he was immediaitely beamed aboard the mother ship and flown at Mach 28 to LasVegas. He now lives in a penthouse overlooking the Strip. And Elvis and Jerry Garcia live just down the hall.
Reply-
100%
jeffery11 year, 3 months ago
Why is it always sasquatch with you guys? Look at the evidence for once, man.
Reply -
-
80%
white-pawn1 year, 3 months ago
And here's Torrents buddy, with his inept attempt to discredit the truth with fiction. I've lost track of how many Sasquatch comments you have made. Like Torrent, you need new material.
Reply-
11%
zaph221 year, 3 months ago
hey torrent, nice to meet you, I've just been informed we're buddies, sure glad to know that as long as we're now buddies according to white pawn that you and I at least agree that truthers are nuts and care little if any about the truth, ironic isn't it?
and us working together, being buddies, just one more thing where they don't really have a clue. lmao
Reply-
-
100%
torrent291 year, 3 months ago
Well don't let it get you too down. I'm sure that they will start to call you a shill soon. I mean look at me! I'm a happy government employee who apparently gets paid to peruse boards, I mean this is just a dream job.
I'm also potentially, Masked Protester, though if any of these people would have a clue, they would realize that since MP was banned from the site, I would imagine that Netscape would like to enforce their bannings. I dunno. Thats just me.
Reply-
0%
zaph221 year, 3 months ago
I just love the FACT, if some of those here can recognize a fact, the fact that if they have even seen you and I post on other threads they'd be shocked to see us agree on this one, since it seems to me most of the time we tend to have opposite points of view. Anyway, we've been promoted to buddies by white pawn, and really that was kind of a nice thing to do. And torrent, hope one day soon we'll actually agree on a subject other than this conspiricy bs. The only sad part, kind of, is to see other liberals try to throw you, one of their own, under the bus for not agreeing with them, I mean I expect it from the extreme far left, since I'm conservative, but to see them doing it to another liberal, kind of interesting to me really. Think they'll figure out why I thought it was so funny when we were first deemed buddies here. lol
Reply-
100%
white-pawn1 year, 3 months ago
Actually demoted. And To clarify for a newbie like yourself, I am neither liberal nor conservative. That paradigm is meaningless. I'm glad that you like being freinds, though. At least somebody can stand you.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
white-pawn1 year, 3 months ago
Nah, let's keep killing them by indiscriminately dropping bombs on them. That way Carlyle and Poppy Bush can make some money replenishing our bomb supply.
Reply
-
-
88%
nakedtruth1 year, 3 months ago
Global warming is caused primarily by the sun.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02...
Reply
-
-
63%
nakedtruth1 year, 3 months ago
Please cite the names of these thousands of scientists or admit that you pulled this out of your butt.
Reply
-
-
0%
elzorro21621 year, 3 months ago
I, too have a science degree (Biology, chemistry) and your assertions about peer reviewed journals is correct, however....Is there the possibility of scientific bias by part of physicists for ECONOMIC reasons? i.e. lose their jobs because of a theory some may consider treason? In the least do they fear losing government funding. Is this a fair question to ask?
Z
Reply-
100%
stephen-johnson1 year, 3 months ago
"this person is not looking for the obvious, and this proves nothing."
Bingo.
This so-called "new evidence" is just a rehash of the same old same old.
Reply -
100%
ecotourusa1 year, 3 months ago
did you watch the video on building 7. it looked like a demo job plain and simple...don't know about the twin towers though.
But, in my eyes, when the towers came down, I felt in my heart that it was the beginning of our downfall: America as it once was.
Conspiracy or not, our country is in trouble.
Reply-
-
-
100%
Helixbuilder1 year, 3 months ago
Give me on credible scenario where this could have been set up and carried out without anyone spilling the beans?
Does anyone KNOW what happened on or are they just guessing like this guy is? There is a difference.
What does your comment have to do with whether this was an inside job or not?
How do you get from what I said to what you think I said?
Reply-
100%
ecotourusa1 year, 3 months ago
I think it will be difficult to get the real story. that's all...and anything is possible.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Jaydee401 year, 3 months ago
Aluminum will even melt in a bonfire, and I'm not talking about tin cans. The thing is he mentions orange in colour, even melted aluminum isn't orange when a liquid. As for sulfur, that can come from to many places, so I don't see where any new evidence is. And as many of you know I think there was inside help.
Reply -
0%
torrent291 year, 3 months ago
You would have to basically suggest that every credible engineer and structural engineer in the world is biased and has no interest in finding out the twoof according to the twoofers.
Reply-
10%
nakedtruth1 year, 3 months ago
Well you have no credibility. You think that a kerosene fire burns at nearly the same temperature as a gasoline fire. That's why you cited the California incident. Actually kerosene burns at around 800 degrees according to Popular Mechanics. But gasoline burns at over 2,000 degrees. What's the melting point of steel? Around 2,500 degrees. So there's no comparison.
Reply-
100%
tkepner1 year, 3 months ago
Actually, according to the arson books used by fire departments across the country, steel melts in a range from about 1,200 degrees to 2,000 degrees depending on the exact process used to make it. And Kerosene has an _ignition_ point of 800 degrees, but can easily burn at temperatures in excess of 2,000 degrees. Or are all the arson investigators in the US are using flawed data? Or perhaps they are also in on the conspiracy?
Terry - www.tkepner.com - T-shirts, Mugs, Stickers, Buttons, & More... with an Attitude!
Reply -
100%
torrent291 year, 3 months ago
Incorrect, jet fuel, and if you had read the popular mechanics article you would note that it said it burns from 800-1500 farenheit and also that steel loses its strength at about 1100.
If you had read it, and had not taken all but the little bit of information away from it you would note that there were other things inside that contributed to the fire and the increasing temperature.
But then I guess... you didn't read it since you didnt note any of these things.
Reply-
87%
Twistoflex1 year, 3 months ago
Michael "Deathead" Chertoff's nephew - who wrote the Popular Science article - can say whatever he wants, the fact is, structural steel does not melt at that temperature. It may very well lose its tensile memory, but that would require considerable time and applied burn, factors that simply were NOT present at any of the three buildings.
Raging fires in steel frame buildings, which lasted for over 17 hours, did result in frame sag, but no collapses ever occured before 9/11.
Moreover, the peculiar architecture of the towers, with their central columns should have presented a very different effect had an assymetrical collapse occured. The central columns should have been left standing. This didn't happen.
Building 7 was even more fortified with I-beams that were thicker even than the twin towers. Yet this building literally imploded, falling straight down into its footprint as the videos and aerial photos depict.
Reply-
100%
torrent291 year, 3 months ago
Despite the twoofers claim, there is a. No connection between Ben Chertoff and Mike Chertoff and b. Ben Chertoff was not the only one who worked on the article.
And again, the building did not fall into its own footprint, its fall damaged surrounding buildings such as the Verizon tower that was just next door.
Reply-
100%
Twistoflex1 year, 3 months ago
LOL! We have videos of the building imploding into its footprint, dude. The whole world has seen those videos and the aerial shots of a neat debris pile.
Curiously, beneath the WTC-7 pile, in the pit, molten steel was found - just like the twin towers, 5 to 6 weeks after the incident.
Reply-
100%
torrent291 year, 3 months ago
http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg
Does that look like a building that collapsed into its own footprint? Maybe if you were not so insistent that it had to be the fault of the US Government you wouldnt so blindly follow the twoofers cause.
Reply-
87%
Twistoflex1 year, 3 months ago
Must you be so blatantly disingenuous? We were talking about building #7.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
white-pawn1 year, 3 months ago
I would suspect that it is difficult to get published in peer review journals when you are about to bite the hand that feeds. Just because many of his peers are cowards doesn't make Jones wrong. I bet you believed there were WMDs in Iraq. Why? Because an authority told you there were. They were on TV all the time telling us about these portable labs and nukes from Nigeria. Everyone belived them, their lies were published everywhere. But they were lies.
Now Jones is trying to bring out the truth. Should I trust the same people that lied about WMDs and Iraq's connection to Al Quida to tell me the truth about 9/11, or whould I suspect that they would cover-up the truth as they did in the past?
Reply-
20%
white-pawn1 year, 3 months ago
Tested positive for WMDs? This is news to me, and probably Hans Blix. What you are saying is they found the actual weopons? Not just some chemicals used for crop dusting. The only test they could really do is look with their eyes and see a missile (or several missiles), or nuke sith some sort of delivery device for the actual chemical and biological agent you describe. Got a photo of the missiles?
Reply -
-
-
40%
ecotourusa1 year, 3 months ago
i'd take that blo__ j_ob any day to this current monkey in office.
blame whomever, but, if gore had been our president, i doubt 9/11 would have happened.
by the way, when our country was under attack monkey continued to read to 5th graders with no reaction whatsoever.
Reply -
0%
white-pawn1 year, 3 months ago
I suppose you haven't seen how chummy Poppy Bush and Slick Willy have become lately. Doesn't everyone know by now that Clinton and Bush have been tight for years, and this whole left-right thing is to keep you beLIEving that you actually have a choice? I thought most people gave up that notion when two "Bonesmen" ran for President.
Reply-
-
100%
zaph221 year, 3 months ago
now there I'll agree with you, we are doomed, and it is, and has been a very slow burn, and I have the impression even you didn't notice it until recently although it started as far as I can tell with LBJ, but I could be wrong there, might be as far back as going off the gold standard and the creation of the Federal Reserve Board, but either way, the path to destruction started in 1964 at the latest.
Reply -
-
-
-
100%
coolmike6991 year, 2 months ago
"All proof, evidence, and facts" all point to a group of terrorists led by Osama Bin Laden. Who said I was blaming Bush?
Reply
-
-
-
100%
coolmike6991 year, 2 months ago
I think that you're an idiot who's just trying to stir up something with your crackpot conspiracy theories.
Reply -
-
-
-
