Grimmer did his study in 2004.
Steven Jones's research commences in 2006.
Grimmer's study proposes the melting of whole steel columns.
Steven Jones proposes thermite cutting charges as commonly used in standard controlled demolition.
Grimmer's proposal does not fit the observable evidence. There is no evidence of whole steel columns "melting".
Steven Jones research is consistent with the observable evidence. There is visual evidence of angled cuts (which allows the top portion of the cut steel column to slide off the bottom part) as used in standard controlled demolition.
Grimmer's study in 2004 is exploratory and conjectural.
Steven Jones study in 2006 is evidentiary.
The preponderance of evidence at all nodes of the attacks (on 9/11/2001) ... prima facie, forensic, circumstantial ... makes it 100% probable that 9/11/2001 was an Inside Job. And whilst the method of the twin towers attacks is less important than the perpetrator of the attacks, it is
clearly discernible in this case ... nonstandard controlled demolition using thermite cutting charges and nanothermite military grade high explosives ... to simulate a floor-by-floor collapsing wavefront, ostensibly triggered by damage near the plane impact zones. Standard controlled demolition was reserved for WTC7 where there was no plane impact and, consequently, no need to simulate a floor-by-floor collapse. Both types of controlled demolition used thermite cutting charges ... but only the twin towers used nanothermite high explosives to mimic floor-by-floor collapse (as per the legerdemain of Boeings, Bedouins, boxcutters).
The evidence bears this out.
Question: So why would anyone bring out Grimmer's conjectural speculations (from 2004) to discuss thermite in 2017, especially when Steven Jones covers the same topic (in 2006) with a lot more science ... and Christopher Bollyn extends Steven Jones findings with an eloquent presentation?
Answer: A Zionist court jester looking to be tarred and feathered ... is the only explanation I can find.
Pax