--- 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  experimental evidence will believe any
damn thing.

I'm not sure who is turning their back on rationality
here; and ignoring this good advice from the Peerage.

Apparently you are unaware that the very kind of
experimental evidence - that you claim to respect so
dearly - was absolutely and totally ignored by NIST in
favor of a computer simulation? And that Sunder was
the chief author of the previous whitewash? 

Since when do we let the authors of highly suspicious
reports investigate themselves?

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 !!

-- which the politically-appointed top staff at NIST
refused to even consider adequately or request samples
of from him. Why? Instead they throw up a diversionary
screen with lots of fancy and meaningless computer
simulations and a massive coordinated PR campaign
which was obviously paid-for, since much of it
preceded the announcement and was not normal News

Apparently you are unaware that the top dozen or more
of the staff at NIST are political appointments ?

Claim of Steven Jones: The way the building fell, and
the chemical analysis of the debris was caused at
least in part by thermate. (Thermate is thermite mixed
with sulfur and sometimes other chemicals, which
produces brief but intense and highly localized
incendiary effects and with LITTLE commensurate

At the NIST report and press conference: Sunder said
that his team investigated these hypothetical causes
and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the
minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the
building down," he said. 

COMMENT: Sunder specifically said "charge" which is
not the way thermate is used. It is more of a slow
burn than an explosive charge -- but there is some
loud sound, which is muffled by the building, but no
huge shock wave like a charge of TNT. We have all seen
these controlled demolitions televised before.

Apparently the Sunder group was considering only a TNT
charge and NOT paying enough attention to thermate
being the cause when they say:

"And we found that even the smallest charge would
release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile
away." There were no reports of such a sound; 

COMMENT: Actually there are many reports from
reputable News Agencies AND directly from the NY Fire
Department itself, and in one of their reports, of a
loud series of muffled explosions preceding the event;
and apparently most of these reports were ignored and
NOT even investigated with the courtesy of a simple
phone call from Sunder's staff. 

SS: "numerous observers and video recordings found the
collapse to be relatively quiet"

COMMENT: "relatively" is the key word here. There were
explosions. There can be no denial of that fact that
there were explosions. The explosions where not of the
"charge" variety like TNT. This is exactly the way
themate operates. It is almost always described as a
"muffled explosion."

Why - if anyone can remotely believe that the Bush
administration wanted to honestly answer all of the
questions - did they assign the very agency to do it -
which had not done a good job initially ? and why did
they not contact Steven Jones for a sample of the
material which his lab says is thermate?

Sunder said: "To apply thermite to a large steel
column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be
needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. [true]

"For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000
lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would
need to be placed around the column..."

WRONG!! This guy is now exposed as being FAR removed
from a demolition expert. The correct answer, at least
from the European experts, is that less than 10 pounds
per column would be needed at the minimum level, even
if more would have been used in a situation where
there was a demolition contract to bring it down.

SS: "....ignited, and remain in contact with the
vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took
place. This is for one column ... presumably, more
than one column would have been prepared with
thermite, if this approach were to be used." That much
is true.

NIST concluded that it was "unlikely that hundreds of
lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried
into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being

IOW they "concluded" based on what evidence? and
without analyzing chemical samples that this was just
"too hard" to do that day. So much for the scientific
method. This is NOT science !

And who said that it had to have been moved in that
day? Sunder did not address the fact that workmen of
all varieties have easy access from the many basement
levels, and that the city had actually issued a
demolition permit for that building years earlier. Too
inflammatory to bring that detail up, one supposes?

It is very easy to shoot down a straw-man argument
that you intentionally invent for target practiced -
which is essentially all that NIST accomplished with
this PR report. And that is all it is: PR - not

This story could be far from over ! unless, of course,
McCain wins in November. Then it is over.

If McCain does not win, you may see Dr Sunder's name,
along with Larry A. Silverstein, at the top of the
extensive list of Bush's Presidential Pardons.

Many of us suspect that at least one reputable News
agency will soon (maybe today) put together a montage
of footage and interviews from 9/11 which will
demonstrate and exposes the lie about "no explosions."

Jones (no relation to Steven)

Reply via email to