What does it take to ignite thermite?


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 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
> reporting..
> 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
> sound.)
> 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
> detected"
> 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
> science.
> 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