The 9/11 Forum

Steven Jones: Prophet of Doom?

It is now over 8 months since Harrit, Jones et al. published their “Active Thermitic Material” paper that was supposed to explain how WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed with the help of the high-tech explosive agent, nanothermite. Indeed, many in the 9/11 Truth Movement immediately hailed H & J’s paper as a landmark publication that would, at the very least, force the powers that be to initiate a new 9/11 investigation.

However, other more cautious scientists noted that H & J’s paper was far from definitive especially with regard to (i) The detection of elemental aluminum in the red/gray chips and (ii) The claim that the chips contained an unidentified organic material that was probably a high explosive such as HMX . When confronted with these and other objections to their research, H & J countered by saying that other studies such as XRD and FTIR were already underway that would (hopefully!) confirm and extend the original identification of the red/gray chips and provide a final verification that these chips really are a high-tech explosive material.

Well, the world has waited and waited for H & J’s promised confirmation of their April 2009 paper but nothing has been forthcoming since then. That is why I was hoping that Jones’ latest pronouncement on his 9/11 research efforts, made on 911Blogger on Dec 29th, 2009, would include new results that would finally confirm the identification of nanothermite in the WTC dust and silence the critics (like me!). Well, no such luck! All that Jones had to say on Dec 29th about nanothermite is that his paper with Harrit et al. has now been translated into Spanish and German! Well, God bless my cojones and Gott helfe mir bitte!

However, the rest of Jones’ Dec 29th message is certainly worth noting and is very revealing of the true status of 9/11 scholarship, at least in the world of Prof. Jones. It turns out that Prof. Jones is a catastrophist since he is urging us all to acquire up to one-year’s supply of food and water and head for the hills where we (hopefully) have a “pre-arranged retreat”. Later in Jones’ 911Blogger post we have this dire warning:

“Exactly WHEN or WHY the grid/or/supply lines you depend on will be curtailed, I cannot say… But it doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to see that various factors are converging towards such a dilemma and we should prepare while it is relatively easy.”

But it turns out that this is nothing new from Prof. Jones. Back in April 2008 Jones posted this on 911Blogger:

“I’ve been talking for many months about the importance of getting some food and water stored up … I’ve also been asked – where do you get cans of wheat, oats, rice, beans, etc? … And please think of a “place of refuge” or two where you and your family might go, should a nasty event take place…”

But if we go back even earlier, to August 2007 for example, we have even more bizarre musings from Prof. Jones:

“I get the question frequently: “WHEN will the big crunch come?” Let me open that question up – how would you vote? Dig out your crystal ball and indicate your predictions of (when) the big crunch will be … Even a 30 % likelihood is enough to get me going on preparing…. People in the 9/11 Community – and others - are warning about “another 9/11.” Whether it comes as nuclear, biological or chemical, whether an inside or outsourced job, the effect is much the same – you will have to be prepared in advance to survive well.”

So there you have it! Jones has been predicting a new-9/11 end-of-the-world (as we know it) event for over two years now. He has even gone so far as to suggest a 99.99 % likelihood of “the big crunch” by the end of 2012. I have to ask if this sounds like the thinking of a rational scientist or a New Age Nostradamus? Meanwhile, Jones now has NOTHING at all to say about the XRD and FTIR analysis of the red/gray chips he said he was working on over 8 months ago. Could it be the “scholars” have failed to find the corroborating evidence they were hoping for, and it is Jones who is preparing to flee to "a place of refuge" from “the big crunch” that will be coming from irate Jones-supporters when they discover the real truth about nanothermite.

Dr. G wrote:when they discover the real truth about nanothermite.

Which is...?

I have to ask if this sounds like the thinking of a rational scientist or a New Age Nostradamus?

There are other choices. Maybe he is just a guy recruited out of a weapons laboratory and a conservative university to lead the sheep astray.

Meanwhile, Jones now has NOTHING at all to say about the XRD and FTIR analysis of the red/gray chips he said he was working on over 8 months ago.

Dr G, are you surprised? I smelled some major problems with his first paper. What happened to all the angle cuts?

And then the microspheres. That was our second warning. What did he have to say about the criticism to the microspheres claim? The same nothing.

Did you honestly expect him to follow this up with a definitive conclusion one way or the other?

If he left the public hanging with the first two papers, why would anyone expect him to follow up on the chip claim?

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I'm not one to say I told you so,

but I did issue quite a few warnings to you gentlemen.

.............................

And how are we supposed to interpret this? That "truthers" have been wrong the whole time? That all us truthers are just a bunch of gullible fools? If so, then perhaps this stimulous-response conclusion is made by a bunch of gullible fools.

And let's look at the David Chandler arguments pimped by 9-11 Blogger, is it not the same? Judy Wood, the same? No planes, the same?

If you can lead 95% of the truthers astray and 95% of the debunkers astray with this nonsense, then you only have a small, isolated group of people to deal with.

Femr2:

I see the "truth" about nanothermite to be that as a substance allegedly found in WTC dust it remains an unproven hypothesis. Jones said he would supply the missing evidence. He has not done so. This suggests no evidence was found (or probably exists) and the red/gray chips are NOT nanothermite.

Major_Tom:

Believe it or not, I DID expect Jones (or Harrit) to provide the missing evidence (needed to prove the presence of nanothermite). And I expected they would be using analytical techniques such as XRD and FTIR. Jones said he would provide such evidence and I had no reason to doubt him.

And I believe the microspheres remain, at least partially, a mystery .....

However, Jones' present behavior does tend to suggest that he is either a disinformation specialist or a deluded egotist .... But perhaps the TRUTH is that everyone (NIST, Jones, Wood, etc ...) is working for the US construction industry, (one way or another).

Demolition theories are a nice diversion when the building design and construction are the REAL problems.

Demolition theories are a nice diversion when the building design and construction are the REAL problems.

An interesting theory.

Dr. G wrote:However, Jones' present behavior does tend to suggest that he is either a disinformation specialist or a deluded egotist .... But perhaps the TRUTH is that everyone (NIST, Jones, Wood, etc ...) is working for the US construction industry, (one way or another).

Demolition theories are a nice diversion when the building design and construction are the REAL problems.

Dr. G, what actual evidence do you have for this assertion?

TS:

There are many photos of failed column splices that suggest that many bolts were missing and probably never installed on the exterior columns.

Many of the welds for the core columns appear to be "tack" welds that were not particularly strong.

The fact that so many columns found in the rubble pile were completely straight or only slightly bent shows that most of them failed at the splices. Thus the great strength of the massive core columns was bypassed by relatively weak lateral forces - clearly a poor design.

Fireproofing was poorly applied; was falling off at many locations, and was not applied at all to the underside of the floorpans except through inadvertent over-spraying.

The use of gypsum wallboard instead of concrete in the core was a serious design weakness that caused terrible problems by blocking many of the stairwells when entire panels were knocked off the walls. A concrete core would probably have saved both Towers.

The Towers were loaded with PVC insulation that is highly inflammable, releases very corrosive HCl gas at relatively low temperatures, and should have been replaced with modern fire-retardant wiring.

The Towers were obviously prone to disproportionate collapse in the event of asymmetric damage. Never trust a truss!

All of this was covered up by NIST and is ignored by Truthers who are apparently more determined to invent a sinister CD plot than look at basic design and construction issues....

Dr. G wrote:TS:

There are many photos of failed column splices that suggest that many bolts were missing and probably never installed on the exterior columns.

Many of the welds for the core columns appear to be "tack" welds that were not particularly strong.

The fact that so many columns found in the rubble pile were completely straight or only slightly bent shows that most of them failed at the splices. Thus the great strength of the massive core columns was bypassed by relatively weak lateral forces - clearly a poor design.

Fireproofing was poorly applied; was falling off at many locations, and was not applied at all to the underside of the floorpans except through inadvertent over-spraying.

The use of gypsum wallboard instead of concrete in the core was a serious design weakness that caused terrible problems by blocking many of the stairwells when entire panels were knocked off the walls. A concrete core would probably have saved both Towers.

The Towers were loaded with PVC insulation that is highly inflammable, releases very corrosive HCl gas at relatively low temperatures, and should have been replaced with modern fire-retardant wiring.

The Towers were obviously prone to disproportionate collapse in the event of asymmetric damage. Never trust a truss!

All of this was covered up by NIST and is ignored by Truthers who are apparently more determined to invent a sinister CD plot than look at basic design and construction issues....

Dr. G, so you are saying you believe the NIST is actually involved in a cover up with regard to the towers, but that it has something to do with faulty design and construction and not a covert controlled demolition.

Regarding WTC 7 I have seen where you have made comments to the effect that the NIST model does not match the actual exterior of the building during its fall. What do you believe the NIST is doing there?

TS:

Well this is getting more and more off-topic, which is the behavior and credibility of the man who first proposed thermite, thermate, nanothermite .... Prof. Steven Jones. Funny, no one appears to want to talk about THAT!

However, I will say that I think NIST saw its job with regard to the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7 as one of providing a story line that leaves the US construction industry and the owners and operators of the WTC Complex free of blame and responsibility for these building failures. (Just like the nuclear regulators here in Canada, NIST will NOT bite the hand that feeds it!)

This is why complex finite element calculations were perfect for the job; and besides, the key physical evidence - the structural steel - could largely be ignored because most of it was long gone! So NIST was free to model to its heart's content! Too bad the programs NIST used require massive computer power and still could only model a few seconds of the building's behavior just prior to collapse. Lucky for NIST no one can check its work ..... For the powers that be though, if the models predict a collapse, the models MUST be good. (Sounds to me like NIST were playing that game where you keep removing sticks from a structure until it collapses ...)

So, for all three buildings, NIST has proposed mechanisms for collapse initiation that lead to total structural failure - but who knows whether or not the buildings actually behaved in the way NIST claims. Certainly NIST's fire modelling is full of assumptions that are NOT supported by observations; but NIST says it's finished the job it was mandated to perform so we can all go home and forget about 9/11 .....

As I said, I believe NIST's intention all along was to provide a story line that lays the blame for the WTC building failures ENTIRELY on the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires - and this is what they did for WTC 1 & 2. For WTC 7, NIST had to be more creative because there were no aircraft impacts into Building 7. Nevertheless, NIST found a way to collapse WTC 7 from just ONE COLUMN failure!

Which goes to show you: if you only think INSIDE the box, your answer will be ..... a box.

Dr. G wrote:Prof. Steven Jones. Funny, no one appears to want to talk about THAT!

What is to say ? I don't really care what he has to say at the moment.

The statement you made about your belief in a design fault cover-up is rather more interesting, and must be explored in full. Feel free to elaborate on a fresh topic if you don't think it should be done here, but I feel the full conversation must be had.

(Sounds to me like NIST were playing that game where you keep removing sticks from a structure until it collapses ...)

WTC 1 & 2 - NO simulation of collapse at all, only fudged initiation conditions and assumption that it would progress.
WTC 7 - NO full descent simulation, with what was released bearing no resemblance to reality in the slightest.

So, for all three buildings, NIST has proposed mechanisms for collapse initiation that lead to total structural failure

Sorry, but no. There is only the assumption of total structural failure. Who knows what may have happened to their 1 & 2 simulation if they had continued it. Would it have borne any resemblance to reality if it had ? WTC 7 simulation certainly did not in the slightest.

but who knows whether or not the buildings actually behaved in the way NIST claims.

We do, and so do you. The buildings did not behave the way NIST claims. A point really not up for argument or speculation.

NIST found a way to collapse WTC 7 from just ONE COLUMN failure!

Did they ? I think the abstraction between a black-box fudged computer model and reality entirely invalidates the statement. All they succeeded in doing was producing a computer simulation within which a wibbly-wobbly grid of sticks fell down in a manner entirely different to the actual event they were attempting to reproduce.

Which goes to show you: if you only think INSIDE the box, your answer will be ..... a box.

I quite agree.

However, I think it is important for you to clarify why you think that all of the other research performed here all indicates design fault...

Femr2:

You personally may not care what Jones has to say about 9/11, but he is undeniably one of the most admired and quoted "leaders" of the 9/11 "Truth Movement". Steven Jones is also the originator of the thermite theory that many on this site appear to adhere to in some way or other. Thus it is of interest to hear what Jones has to say, especially when he promised back in April 2009 to provide key analytical data for his WTC dust samples - data that would make an old skeptic like me sit up and take notice. So when Jones fails to deliver on this promise I sart to wonder why, and suspect that he did not get the results he wanted.

As for your point that I appear to be ignoring 9/11 research not performed by NIST, this is not so. I think NIST missed a lot of issues that are important to the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7, but NIST have issued the mighty and formidable NIST REPORTS on 1, 2 and 7 that are, whether you like it or not, the benchmarks of research on this topic.

Any internet forum poster that thinks he or she can change the world because they disagree with NIST better start submitting papers to journals showing in scientific terms where NIST went wrong and offering better collapse theories. Now if proponents of such alternative theories start talking about pre-planted explosives they better have plenty of evidence for this, .... and this segues nicely back to our good Professor Jones and his nanothermite....

Dr. G wrote:Femr2:

You personally may not care what Jones has to say about 9/11, but he is undeniably one of the most admired and quoted "leaders" of the 9/11 "Truth Movement".

I understand, but what is there to say ?
I suppose I could say...
...didn't expect him to get around to answering the additional questions.
...don't expect additional study of the dust any time soon, if at all.
...don't have a definite opinion on the use of an unconfirmed substance. Even if someone sent your good self a big bag of WTC dust tomorrow (which I hope could happen) and even if you found it contained 100% confirmable supernanothermiate, the result is that you'd be the target of all sorts of crap from the rabid minions beneath their respective *leaders* of both sides, and the provenance of the sample would be infinitely questioned until the results sank into the depths of evidence continually lauded by *the debunkers* as having been *debunked*.
Sigh...

As for your point that I appear to be ignoring 9/11 research not performed by NIST, this is not so.

Not suggesting such, just that all of the bits-n-pieces we've looked at would all also have to be explainable tracking back to design flaws. Would be interesting to see what you think the design flaws were. I suppose one would be the constant nature of perimeter-floor-core connection strength ?

I think NIST missed a lot of issues that are important to the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7, but NIST have issued the mighty and formidable NIST REPORTS on 1, 2 and 7 that are, whether you like it or not, the benchmarks of research on this topic.

Don't like the reports, but they are what they are.

Any internet forum poster that thinks he or she can change the world because they disagree with NIST better start submitting papers to journals showing in scientific terms where NIST went wrong and offering better collapse theories.

Heh heh. Decorum Dr. G. Odd angle to come in at.
If you feel like assisting in the mechanics of the ROOSD model, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it, even if it was to conclusively prove it incorrect, eh ?

Now if proponents of such alternative theories start talking about pre-planted explosives they better have plenty of evidence for this, .... and this segues nicely back to our good Professor Jones and his nanothermite....

Them pesky proponents. Had they ? Exactly what is the evidence provided by NIST showing post initiation collapse to ground in observable timeframes ?

Add...

Given that you have agreed many points of error, and even deliberate cover-up and omission of details, within the NIST report, are you a proponent ?

One point I must make is the Flight 175 impact orientation...

NIST got it wrong.

Now, as they got the impact orientation wrong, they also got the impact damage simulation wrong.
As they got the impact damage wrong, they got the initiation conditions wrong
etc...

I like the impact orientation study implications

Dr G wrote:However, Jones' present behavior does tend to suggest that he is either a disinformation specialist or a deluded egotist ....

when i was pointed out what Journal Of Nine Eleven Studies spells i thought the same.

broken sticks

To be honest, I always thought that the JONES acronym thing was serendipitous, and kind of "funny".....

femr2:

Yes, the constant perimeter-floor-core connection strength is a very important design consideration - as someone who does collapse calculations surely knows. I would like to see these factors evaluated compared to buckling and crushing. The possible omission of perimeter column bolts also needs to be considered.

When you look at photos of failed perimeter column splices you see many examples of column ends with pristine bolt holes, (together with examples of severely gouged bolt holes!) Could it be that, because of weak column connections (bolts and welds), the Towers were inherently unstable when subjected to relatively minor lateral forces caused by the aircraft impacts?

Dr. G wrote:Yes, the constant perimeter-floor-core connection strength is a very important design consideration - as someone who does collapse calculations surely knows. I would like to see these factors evaluated compared to buckling and crushing.

That's what ROOSD is all about...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/oos-destruction-collapse-model-t264.html

The possible omission of perimeter column bolts also needs to be considered.

When you look at photos of failed perimeter column splices you see many examples of column ends with pristine bolt holes, (together with examples of severely gouged bolt holes!)

One side gouged from being on one side of a bend, the other clean from being *pinged* off ? (if that makes sense)

Could it be that, because of weak column connections (bolts and welds), the Towers were inherently unstable when subjected to relatively minor lateral forces caused by the aircraft impacts?

Given the extreme IB of the East face of WTC 2 during the first moments of initiation, I'd say absolutely no. Exactly the opposite. The following animation shows, imo, a level of strength in the perimeter connections I didn't think possible...