Wrong.
There is no realistic possibility of proving by chemical analysis of the debris that therm*te either was or was not present; the main constituents of thermite, aluminium, oxygen and iron, were all present in enormous quantities in the structure of the towers and the air around them, and any other elements found by Jones can be explained by experimental artefacts and contamination from other materials known to be present in enormous quantities. As a result, Jones's work tells us precisely nothing.
OK, that's chemical analysis disposed of. However, there is more to consider than chemical analysis. There is the absence of any testimony that large scale work was under way in the WTC towers prior to the attacks that might have been a cover for installing thermite cutting devices. There is the observed failure mode of the towers, which is visibly inconsistent with the cause being severing of the core columns. There are the known properties of the thermite reaction, which make it impossible that the proposed demolition mechanism could have been used without technology that is not known to exist and would certainly involve bulky installations, taking us back to the first point. There is the absence of any testimony from the workers cleaning up ground zero and the FBI agents examining the debris to the effect that any mechanisms were found whose purpose was unknown or mysterious and might have been connected with the use of thermite to effect a controlled demolition. There is the absence of any credible motive for controlled demolition of the towers. And so on, and so on.
In summary, there is overwhelming physical, testimonial (is that the word?) and circumstantial evidence that there was no controlled demolition of the twin towers. The suggestion that it should be considered as a possibility because a piece of evidence claimed to suggest CD cannot in fact be shown to disprove CD is what's known as shifting the burden of proof - and in this case there's ample proof to shoulder the burden.
Dave
