WTC7 seems to be a classic controlled demolition. WTC 1 &2 destruction appears to have been enhanced by thermate (a variation of thermite) in addition.
Pentagon was not struck by a passenger aircraft. It was a drone or missle.
Because some of you have asked what Professor Jones is up to, I am posting a recent email message which he sent to several people. Rest assured, Professor Jones is working hard to research what happened on 9/11.
Though it's very late, I'd like to share a few thoughts before I retire.
1. Evidently there are some who go to considerable lenghts to promote the notion that there can never be "proof" of an inside job on 9/11 -- whether that happened or not as an inside job. So, we might as well abandon the effort, and let it go.
Others (I have read) have pointed out this argument was used effectively to stymie further investigation of the JFK assassination. I wonder how many "9/11 truthers" are buying into such a discouraging philosophy?
2. Some OTOH raise the "preponderance of evidence" argument -- that will stand in a court of law or impeachment, if we can ever get to such a trial. This approach may work, given enough time and the opportunity for a trial in an objective court.
3. As a third altermative, I'm seeking solid evidences that approach scientific proof. And I see three possible avenues here:
A. The use of thermite in arson has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in many cases already: Fire investigators have developed techniques to pin down the use of thermite, as I discussed in my LA talk. The signature residues of thermite are so distinctive -- when one uses EDS, XRF and other methods -- that it is indeed possible to prove arson by thermite. This gives me hope that this approach can be effectively used to prove thermite use on 9/11. (And I deeply appreciate your help in this research effort!)
Note also that while I'm leaning now to the use of thermite-containing sol-gels, it is possible that cylinders containing thermite as you have found patents for could have [also] been used. Finding such a cylinder would indeed be a dramatic proof in itself, I believe.
B. Showing that the Towers and/or WTC 7 would not have collapsed so rapidly or in the way they did, if fires alone had initiated collapse.
Here the published works of Prof. Kuttler and Gordon Ross (and others) are hopeful -- in that their line of reasoning and calculations could very well lead to a conclusion that deliberate actions would have been required to bring the buildings down in the WAY THEY WERE OBSERVED TO COLLAPSE.
C. Confession by an insider, particularly a high-up insider with detailed insider information which could be checked, would end the debate also.
D. Another 9/11-type "catalyzing event" may be staged by perpetrators, and with the number of people aware of the likelihood of such staged events and WATCHING, it is likely that the data will be gathered quickly and not effectively destroyed this next time. (I'm remembering here the way the steel was shipped to Asia for recycling from the 9/11 events, for example) . In this way, the perps would be stopped -- by observant citizens working together.
So no, I do not accept the defeatist arguments that the debate over 9/11 will never end. Indeed, I am inclined to believe, because of the progress lately in the areas delineated above -- that the end of the debate will come rather soon. I believe this will happen before the 2008 elections, if we keep pressing forward as we have in recent months, in the "9/11 Truth Movement."
My desire here is to encourage you to keep up the investigative and highly supportive work that you have done, for which I offer my deepest appreciation.