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 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) > >
