The second review came back as:
snip
I strongly suggest that you read “Introduction to Superconductivity” by
Tinkham; paying special attention to the Josephson effect and Josephson
junctions. After doing so, you should convert the functions in your equations
to
those used by Tinkham.
I
on 24/8/08 1:26 pm, Jed Rothwell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Jones does not believe cold fusion is real. He has seen
incontrovertible evidence that it is real, and he has met for many
days with people such as Miles and Storms, who have told him about
their results in detail. But,
Edmund Storms wrote:
The whole conspiracy approach is based on a profound distrust of
this government. While they could not go so far as to plant
explosives, how far would they go to gain an advantage by such an
event? Would they make sure the planes were not stopped?
That is at least
--- Jed Rothwell wrote:
Because Steve Jones has turned his back on
rationality, he rushes to embrace things like the 9/11
conspiracy theories, which are every bit as daft as
his notions about cold fusion. To paraphrase Lord
Chesterfield's remark about God, a man who stops
believing in
What does it take to ignite thermite?
Harry
on 24/8/08 2:49 pm, Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Jed Rothwell wrote:
Because Steve Jones has turned his back on
rationality, he rushes to embrace things like the 9/11
conspiracy theories, which are every bit as daft as
his
Since thermite is so effective at cutting through steel is it
ever used on construction sites as a fast and dirty substitute
for cutting torches?
harry
on 24/8/08 2:49 pm, Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Jones, no matter what his incorrect opinions may
be on LENR- found ample chemical evidence from the WTC
site and analyzed it under laboratory conditions. He
found evidence of Themate !!
how did he get his samples?
Harry
--- Harry:
What does it take to ignite thermite?
A small charge will do it, about what this officer
heard:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm
on 24/8/08 3:20 pm, Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Harry:
What does it take to ignite thermite?
A small charge will do it, about what this officer
heard:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm
Could a fire ignite thermite?
harry
--- Harry wrote:
how did he {Prof. Jones] get his samples?
If what you are really asking is: is there a chain of
custody which would stand up in court - I doubt it.
The important thing for the NIST to have done,
however, is NOT to have ignored this, but to have
checked his sample in their
--- Harry
Could a fire ignite thermite?
This brings up a curious point.
There was indication in a link to the NY Architectural
Press some years ago that there is/was a statute on
the books in Manhattan -- which was put there in back
in the time frame when a WWII bomber crashed into the
Empire
Even if you do not speak Italian - please watch this
video clip from Italian TV to the end - where you can
hear and see the explosions at WTC 7 for yourself.
There are other vids on the web but they are much
longer than this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
Now - Then tell me
on 24/8/08 4:14 pm, Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even if you do not speak Italian - please watch this
video clip from Italian TV to the end - where you can
hear and see the explosions at WTC 7 for yourself.
There are other vids on the web but they are much
longer than this one.
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:19:53 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
That is at least plausible. It would be a small conspiracy with only
a few people involved. If you want NIST to lie about an engineering
analysis, you would have to enlist thousands of experts world-wide to go
[I am going to try posting with Gmail. I am tired of Mindspring's bad habits.]
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
a few people involved. If you want NIST to lie about an engineering
analysis, you would have to enlist thousands of experts world-wide to go
along.
[snip]
It isn't necessary for the
--- Robin
It isn't necessary for the scientists to lie. Just
tell them to find the scientific explanation for
the collapse of the building (as if it weren't already
known), and they will happily trot off and create lots
of lovely models to explain it. IOW they inadvertently
work within the
Harry Veeder wrote:
on 24/8/08 2:49 pm, Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Jones, no matter what his incorrect opinions may
be on LENR- found ample chemical evidence from the WTC
site and analyzed it under laboratory conditions. He
found evidence of Themate !!
how did he
--- Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Now there is a problem here, which is that large
buildings are put together via welding torches which,
when they are used to weld beams
That is apparently FALSE for that building.
Where did you get this exactly? Please give us some
cites. I hope it was not from
18 matches
Mail list logo
