Considering that I use thermite to MAKE molten pools of metal, as part of a glass sculpture technique, that would be incorrect. The reaction in large amounts doesnt "blow" things away. Thats standard aluminum / iron (II) oxide thermite.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hate to get involved in this cat fight, but when thermite is used, it > melts only a very local region which is blown away from the area by the > reaction. A molten pool of iron would not be produced. I suspect, as others > have suggested, that the huge energy of the collapse would melt the iron, > which would run to the lowest point where a pool would form. This would make > it look as if a lot more molten iron were present than was actually the > case. As for aluminum, the airplane was made of aluminum and aluminum is > present in small amounts in building material either as the metal or Al2O3. > Therefore, I see nothing unusual about finding aluminum. As for the other > speculations, I agree with Jed. If any of the buildings were brought down on > purpose, this knowledge would get out. This is too big to keep secret. > However, I believe the administration knew this was going to happen but they > did not expect the buildings to collapse. They wanted an excuse to ramp up > the war on terror but they did not want such a loss. This any many other > acts that need to be investigated makes a win by Obama very important. > Ed > > Ed > On Sep 8, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Jed Rothwell > >> You mean NIST and the NYFD and every other fire department and safety > agency on earth has chosen to ignore that. No doubt they are all part > of a grand conspiracy. Get used to it. > > Huh? Every other fire department on earth? Get real - better yet get some > facts together besides "NIST told me so." > > Of course, no fire department, certainly not the NYFD, are part of any grand > conspiracy - unless getting at the truth scientifically is now to be labeled > as "conspiracy". If you are not consulted, then how can you object? > > Is that you definition of conspiracy (getting at the truth scientifically, > in spite of a past flawed report) ? > > Funny, since this remark is coming from the prime (and eloquent) defender of > a technology (LENR) which is also facing similar disproportionate criticism > from a stone wall of "experts" who are alighned against it, and who (those > experts) are also failing to look at a mountain of evidence pointing the > other way. > > Even the mayor Rudy Giuliani said weeks after the incident about the NYFD > "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires > 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days." [direct quote] > > Of course, no one seriously believes that Rudy went out an measured this > temperature, but he should have been getting accurate information from the > fire chiefs - and this was long before an official report came out. > > By the way, and speaking of demolition experts - lets go to the very best > CDI. > > CDI stands for Controlled Demolition Inc., the world-renowned Baltimore > company that uses thermite explosives to implode structures such as WTC7. > There is no more hands-on, and knowledgeable company in the trade. > Company-founder Jack Loizeaux and his sons have handled many high profile > demolitions including the Murrah Building in Okla. City. > > Mark Loizeaux, now president of CDI and one of the contractors in the > clean-up is quoted in newspaper accounts and television interviews in the > weeks following 9/11 as seeing molten steel in the bottoms of elevator > shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack. > > Is this part of a conspiracy? No - absolutely not. It is the reporting of > fact by an observer who had been superbly competent to report on what he has > seen directly - unlike the bureaucrats at NIST... > > ... who seldom go out of the office except to show their bizarre video > simulations which do not consider anything below the eight floor - and then > to dodge questions about why they did not consider very basic things, like > molten steel or like interviewing Mark Loizeaux - years later about why he > might have changed some details of his original interview, AFTER the first > report came out . > > http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/index.html > > When steel beams were pulled from these glowing pools, and there are videos > showing this - many of them still had dripping metal coming from fairly > straight cut marks. Was some worker down there in a 2000 degree inferno with > a torch? Were these videos faked ? If so why didn't NIST say they are fake > videos? > > Here is a website put up and maintained by those same NYFD firefighters who > Rothwell wants us to believe are "going along" and supporting the flawed > NIST official report: > > http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2948#post2948 > > I think someone in the next administration should poll the surviving firemen > and clean-up crews. > > Know what, I will make a large bet that the great majority will say that > there was moltent steel under ground zero for weeks - and even that many > will say that there was clear evidence of demolition. Did NIST interview a > single firefighter or cleanup crewman? > > Nope ... sorry that would have involved getting hands dirty with real > eye-witnesses when they gratly prefer a "computer simulation" as if the > computer adds some semblance of authority. What a sad joke. > > Jones > > > >
