Evidence that Steven Jones' "Molten Metal" is Fabricated

All emphasis added.

[The following is an excerpt from Drs Wood/Reynolds paper: "Star Wars Directed Energy Weapon"]

PHOTO LINK

Figure Thermal (a) shows thermal imaging of WTC on September 16, 2001, and F is the largest hot spot. We understand that the raw data came from NASA and then these images were produced by USGS using the NASA data. How reliable are these data? Assume the data are valid for the sake of argument. Figure Thermal(b), September 23, 2001, shows no large hot spots anywhere, casting doubt on the stories of long-lived molten metal. So, if the imaging data are reliable, then the hot spots disappeared within two weeks, not 99 days. But there are reasons to suspect that the imaging data are false. A spot like F would seem to be the most likely location to find molten metal, yet this spot coincides with hole 2 as shown in Figure 300 [below], where we found no evidence of molten metal. Instead it appears to be a damp basement.

There are other reasons to doubt the stories of "pools of molten metal." First, the stories of molten metal come from interested parties like the head of Tully Construction and Controlled Demolition, Inc. Second, there are no photos of molten metal that we believe are reliable. Third, there are no photos of the solidified molten metal after it cooled either in place or being carried out. There's no evidence of molten metal before, during, or after. Fourth, the molten metal may be a cover story to hide the grim truth. Vehicle dust kicked up on a dirt road does not take six months to settle out. Dust from traditional controlled demolition settles out quickly, even after being jackhammered and pushed around. But the dust at the WTC was so ultra-fine that hosing it down would have been a wise thing to do. It is quite possible that GZ workers were not hosing down molten metal but were hosing down ultra-fine dust and the fumes of molecular dissociation.

PHOTO FIGURE 300

Figure 300. GZ workers descend into the subbasements below WTC2. While there is extensive damage, there is little building debris at the bottom of the hole. There is no sign of molten metal. A worker in the distance walks along a massive core column.
(photo filed 9/18/01)

Figure 300 looks down into the basement of WTC2 in zone 2 in shown in Figure 300(b). This is adjacent to the southeast corner of the bathtub wall which was damaged at the top. There seems to be a wet floor or puddle of water. There is no steam rising. There clearly is no molten metal visible in this section of the basement.

=================================================
=================================================
=================================================

[The following is an excerpt from Dr Wood's video page]

[photo from Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" Last checked Feb 5, 2007, 9:30PM ET]

PHOTO LINK

Why is the "air" colored orange?
Why does the "Cheeto" on the ground have uniform color?
Or perhaps it even looks hotter away from the heat source.
If it really were that hot, the hydraulics would not be working.

=================================================
=================================================
=================================================

[The following is an excerpt from Drs Wood/Reynolds paper: "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate? A peer-review of Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research"

Over a year before Jones appeared, Derrick Grimmer, a Ph.D. physicist from Washington University-St. Louis and member of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE), posted a scientific article about possible use of thermite to melt sections of the WTC core. Jones does not cite this work but begins with the WTC study by the government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and its videos and pictures of liquid metal pouring from a window of the WTC 2. Jones does not challenge these data though they appear to violate the laws of physics. Where would heat sufficient to melt "huge" quantities of metal come from, allow it to collect in large reservoirs and pour along unspecified (irrigation) channel(s)? And how could thermite, which is little more than a cutting torch, melt mass quantities of metal [see Figure 14(b) and (c)]. After a confrontation, Jones admitted that Andrew Johnson spliced the videotape but they fail to tell us what was spliced to what and why and what the effect is. NIST claims the pictures and videos were from Reuters and WABC-TV but are they real? They look fake. 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 already doctored. Perhaps it was real phenomena but we strongly doubt it because

# No heat source is specified
# The liquid inexplicably appears to flow from a window rather than the floor and there is no explanation for what surface would support the flow
# The flow changes windows
# The aluminum cladding on the exterior displays no signs of heat or melting despite the fact that iron begins to melt at 1538° C and aluminum alloys begin to melt at temperatures under 660° C
# The flow disappears prior to destruction of WTC 2 as the video jumps.

PHOTO LINK

Figure 10(a):NIST reports: "The intensity levels have been adjusted…" NIST does not say if the adjustment was uniform, confined to a particular window or what. The images have been tampered with and therefore are useless as data to scientists.

PHOTO LINK

Figure 10(b): Jones’ edited version of the photo ignores the NIST alert that "the intensity levels have been adjusted." He has also used spliced videotapes without identifying they were tampered with.

PHOTO LINK

Figure 10(c): The alleged flow appears in a different window.

We cannot explain how molten metal would pour from a window ledge and then move and pour from another window ledge, although NIST claims the flow performed such a feat within seven minutes of collapse. We need answers to these questions before we become convinced that the event was real and therefore deserves analysis.

=================================================
=================================================
=================================================

[photo from Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" Last checked Feb 5, 2007, 9:30PM ET]

When comparing the above photo to the following, it is obvious Jones used an altered photo. The detail in the original photo below is much more crisp and defined.

source

Judy Wood had said in a recent interview that if the photo was really of molten metal, the rescue workers' skin would have melted.

Notice the ambiguous Jones wording in his PDF: "Workers evidently peering into the hot "core" under the WTC rubble." Is this deliberate deception while avoiding responsibility for it?