|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Shortcuts: |
Click on images for enlargements.
From the March edition of Hustler magazine:
And who told Hustler that Gordon Ross was a professor with a PhD? And who told Hustler that former Professor Judy Wood was just a "mechanical engineer"? Mark Johnson contacted Dr. Judy Wood, after she began posting the "Star Wars Beam Weapon" document, asking her to send him high-resolution versions of the diagrams on her BBE page, as he planned to include some of these... but that was before he spoke with Steven Jones. What do you think Steven Jones told him?
 |
| Page 36 |
 |
| Page 37 |
|
Hustler Magazine - “Was 9/11 an INSIDE JOB?”
Critique / Rebuttal Compiled by Andrew Johnson Using Comments supplied by Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, Jeff Strahl and Veronica Chapman Jan 12 2007
This article is a response to the article published in the March 2007 Issue of the US Hustler magazine, pages 36 & 37. (Pages 37 – 40 contained additional material about the Loose Change film and Alex Jones, which will not be addressed here.) Whilst we are pleased that Hustler magazine has given further exposure to the information about why 9/11 must have been an “Inside Job”, we felt it necessary to point out certain inaccuracies and ambiguities in the article.
1. Article - Page 36 1.1. “NEW SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!” This statement is not really correct. Even Steve Jones’ paper, on which the article primarily focuses, is over 1 year old. Further, scientific research has been posted on the Internet for much longer (for example, an analysis of the freefall times of the WTC Towers’ debris) 1.2. “Researchers say that the speed, force and evenness of these clouds indicate Controlled Demolition” This is only one factor in the discussion of controlled demolition. More important factors are (a) The speed of destruction of the buildings (not the clouds) (b) The symmetry of the destruction of the buildings. (c) The orderly destruction of the buildings (i.e. in one continuous sequence not as a set of discrete events). Also, the buildings were pulverized in mid-air, while falling - they did NOT "collapse", as seen with other conventional demolitions. 1.3. “… physicist Jim Hoffman” Jim Hoffman not a physicist – he is a software engineer based in Alameda, California, who has worked in mathematical visualization. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hoffman) 1.4. Bottom right picture – “researchers say cutter charges like the one pictured above severed the WTC load-carrying columns”
Prof Steve Jones is the main proponent of this idea. When his paper was first published, it drew a number of supporters. However, further consideration and analysis of this idea has raised a few questions.
Professor Judy Wood has pointed out that 8 devices per beam may be needed - one on the inside and one on the outside, one each for the 4 faces of the box columns. Then, there were columns that had more than 4 sides (a box beam with a center piece as well). Also, Prof Jones contends that a certain patented device was used to enable the thermite to make horizontal or vertical cuts, even though it normally works in the vertical direction and with the force of gravity. There is no record of such a device ever being used, and Jones admitted that in order for it to be used on columns which are 4 inches thick, two devices would have to be used on each side. How would such devices be attached? Also, how could a 'thermite detonation' - on each side - be accurately timed? There is also the question of reliable ignition, and the slow mode of action of thermite, a real problem given the need to time the demolition very accurately to make it look like free fall. At least one of Jones's buddies, Nicholas Newton, has contended that thermite was burning for 5 minutes before demolition. Jones states that large quantities of molten metal were observed in the rubble piles, but does not say where these reports come from. 1.5. Collapse (destruction) times quoted from NIST are incorrect. “NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2…” (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm ) 2. Article Page 37 2.1. “Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer”
Judy Wood is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering who has advanced degrees: Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science, from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1992 M.S. Engineering Mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1983, B.S. Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering), Virginia Tech, 1981
2.2. “At the forefront of ST911’s research is Steven Jones…” Steven Jones has now resigned from ST911 due to disagreements about the application of the Scientific Method to different strands of research. He is essentially therefore, at the forefront of STJ911 (or S911TJ), not ST911. Also, he was unknown in the 9/11 Truth Movement until late Summer '05. 2.3. “In a recent paper Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse…” The paper was originally published in August or September 2005, so is not that recent, and has now been re-titled “Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse.” 2.4. “…reveals yellow to white hot molten aluminum dripping from the South Tower just before its collapse” The picture of molten metal is a still from a video sequence of uncertain provenance - here is no verified photographer, no chain of custody and obvious contradictions with the facts. NIST claims the pictures and videos were from Reuters and WABC-TV but who took the pictures? What was the chain of custody? Is there evidence of photoshopping? NIST acknowledges it "adjusted" the intensity of the photos somehow - so they were at least already doctored in this way. Perhaps it was real phenomena but we strongly doubt it because no heat source is specified. In the video sequence which Jones has used as evidence, the flow disappears prior to destruction of WTC 2 as the video cuts.
Jones suggests that “its precise color and consistency are good indicators of its chemical composition”. There are a number of problems with this. The color of molten metals is more dependent on the temperature they are heated to than the actual metal. For example, although aluminum is silvery and molten when heated to 600 deg C, when Iron is still solid, both Iron and aluminum glow reddish-orange at temperatures of around 1400C.
Additionally, the observed color of the metal will depend on characteristics of the video camera and how the video footage was encoded or decoded, so it would not be a reliable measure of the metal’s temperature, or its type. Also, regarding the dripping metal. Jones has contended that it is iron mixed with sulfur, that somehow there was enough sulfur in the mixture to enable it to be in fluid form even though Jones claims the molten metal was at 650 deg C (aluminum alloys at melt at between 450-660 deg C) - way below the melting point of iron - 1538 deg C. Jones has never explained how that mixture could then flow over the aluminum cladding and not melt it, given it was hot enough to do so. Additionally, Jones has never stated just how much sulfur would be required to mix with iron so that the mixture would still be in liquid form at 650 deg C. For the molten metal to flow as Jones has suggested, it would initially require some sort of reservoir for this molten metal to flow into, so what would have filled that role? Otherwise, why didn't it burn down through the floors, rather than flowing outward, through a window? 2.5. “In peer-reviewed research and experimentation…”
Overall, the peer review process of Steve Jones’ paper has been informal. To date, it has not been published in a recognized Scientific Journal. Additionally, well-qualified peers have publicly disagreed with some of Jones’ conclusions. (See Point 2.4)
2.6. “…Jones hypothesizes the thermite, commonly used by the demolition industry…”
Thermite is rarely, if ever, used to demolish buildings – because it is an incendiary (slow burning) rather than an explosive. It is sometimes used in clean up operations and some researchers have suggested that it may have been used in the clean up operation at the WTC (to deal with steel in the WTC debris, for example) rather than as part of the actual demolition.
Importantly, use of thermite alone cannot account for the level of pulverization / dustification seen both during the destruction of the towers and in the aftermath. 2.7. “Jones has also found evidence on preserved debris…”
Jones has never produced a verified chain of custody for any of his samples, so their provenance is uncertain. When questioned about this issue, Steve Jones has been reticent. Therefore all experimentation on the sulfur residue is inconclusive.
Similarly, for dust samples, Jones has stated that The chain of custody relates back to Janette MacKinlay. Steve Jones and Jim Hoffman visited her apartment by the WTC site in 2006 and collected dust samples which accumulated there over a period of several days starting with 9/11, during which she wasn't home. So, the forensic integrity of this evidence is weak and came almost 5 years after the event. 2.8. “Kenneth Kuttler and Gordon Ross, also Ph.D professors…” Gordon Ross is not a Ph.D Professor, he has a BSc. Mechanical Engineering. 2.9. General
The article repeatedly uses the word 'collapse' to describe what happened to WTC 1 & 2. They did not collapse really, they were almost completely destroyed – i.e. a large initial amount of energy was involved.
The article has no mention of the “toasted” cars, no discussion of what happened to the “Bathtub” and it does not mention the amount of paper debris which was seen, despite the fact this should have burned up if there were explosives used. The article doesn't discuss the round holes in WTC 5 and 6, and those in the street, nor does it mention the cylindrical holes in WTC 3. It does not point out that only buildings with a "WTC" prefix were destroyed. This destruction can be seen in pictures shown here: http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam4.html#Holes |
 |
| Page 38 |
 |
| Page 39 |
 |
| Page 82 |