Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
Morgan Reynolds speaks out about the themite/thermate hypothesis and its weaknesses . . .
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:21:47 -0500 [11:21:47 AM CDT]
From: "Morgan Reynolds"
To: "jfetzer@d.umn.edu" , "Michael Morrissey"
I am widely accused of discrediting the 9/11 truth movement but it is Gage/Jones/and the rest of their gang that does so. There is no substantive case for thermite or its variants playing a significant role in turning the WTC (mostly) to fine dust. Theirs is a distraction, a limited hangout, a fall back story for the perps who, once the 9/11official version I fairy tale lies in ruins, trot out version II: muslim terrorists used internally-placed explosives to bring down the WTC—ridiculous version II.
See the following:
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&...
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/a/PhillipsCritique/physicist_criti...
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/a/why_thermite.html
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/a/Hustler/Hustler.html#rebuttal
And most important of all IMO:
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/scientific/JonesScientificMethod.html
Excerpts:
1 Where is the proof of concept for the thermite hypothesis? Wikipedia Encyclopedia defines "Proof of concept" as "a short and/or incomplete realization (or synopsis) of a certain method or idea(s) to demonstrate its feasibility, or a demonstration in principle, whose purpose is to verify that some concept or theory is probably capable of exploitation in a useful manner. The proof of concept is usually considered a milestone on the way of a fully functioning prototype." Dr. Jones has never laid it out.
2 Where is the proof that thermite has EVER been used to bring down major buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)? To our knowledge thermite has never been used to bring down skyscrapers.
3 Where is the proof that thermate has EVER been used to bring down major buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)? To our knowledge thermate has never been used to bring down skyscrapers.
4 Where is the proof that nano-enhanced thermite has EVER been used to bring down major buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)? To our knowledge nano-enhanced thermite has never been used to bring down skyscrapers. Dr. Jones has criticized the competing hypotheses of others as "wacky, unproven ideas." We wonder if the same denunciation applies to thermite.
...
3 Exactly what volume of thermite/thermate/nano-enhanced thermite would be required in total to be placed in the building to generate enough energy?
4 Exactly where did it need to be placed? Over how much surface area in the building did it have to be placed? For example, what x% of every beam, y% of every floor, z% of every wall, etc.? How thick would it have to be against various steel columns, beams, concrete, etc.? Derrick Grimmer attempted one calculation along these lines and found that thermite would need to be slightly less than 3 inches thick over the surface of every box column [Grimmer].
5 How many hours of labor would it take to cover every surface of the building, carefully avoiding detection by WTC office workers? Grimmer's calculation ignores the much greater volume of the floors. In any event, thermite does not explode and pulverize. It cannot explain the data.
...
2 Exactly how was ignition accurately controlled? How was it timed? Where is the experiment demonstrating it? Has thermite ever been ignited by remote control? Have multiple thermite ignitions ever been set off with exact timing by remote control? How many remote control radio frequencies would be required to do this? How many ignition devices would be needed to cut 236 outer columns and 47 core columns on each of the 110 floors? An ignition device on each column on each floor would total 31,130 ignitions. None of this would cut floor trusses or pulverize the concrete floors or any of the WTC contents, much less steel beams.
Dr. Jones says the buildings "collapsed," but he does not show the exact mechanism of "collapse," he does not model it (just like NIST does not model it), and he does not run experiments that demonstrate it. Of course such modeling is futile because the buildings did not collapse, they were blown to kingdom come. Where was the stack of all the steel from each tower at Ground Zero?
Etc, etc.
On 10/28/09 2:08 AM, "jfetzer@d.umn.edu" wrote:
> Well, I had several conversations about being involved in this event
> and offered to provide 100 copies of The Madison Conference DVD for
> them to use in their promotions, but they appear to have decided to
> follow another path, which is their right and privilege.
>
> What troubles me is that Gage/Jones/and the rest of their group are
> unwilling to talk about who was involved or why it was done. That, it
> seems to me, is most unlikely to motivate anyone into fervent support
> for a reinvestigation of 9/11, because it is too abstract.
>
> Suppose the buildings had been turned into millions of cubic yards of
> dust using nano-thermite, which I doubt. What does that mean? Who had
> motive, means, and opportunity? That is where Gage/Jones/and the rest
> sputter into silence. They won't go there, which is a complete waste.
>
> The way they approach 9/11, what happened is a scientific and technical
> curiosity, not a massive deception of the public to instill fear and to
> bring about support for wars of aggression they otherwise would not have
> supported. So who gained? Who was responsible? They offer only silence.
>
> Quoting "Michael Morrissey" :
>
>> Official story humming -- I like that.
>>
>>
>> On 28.10.2009, at 00:15, The Webfairy wrote:
>>
>>> After years of official story humming, silence and censorship
>>> toward anything 911, Pacifica's WBAI NYC is using 911"Truth" of the
>>> Thermite/Richard Gage/David Ray Griffin variety for their
>>> fundraising efforts.
>>
>
From: "Morgan Reynolds"
To: "jfetzer@d.umn.edu" , "Michael Morrissey"
I am widely accused of discrediting the 9/11 truth movement but it is Gage/Jones/and the rest of their gang that does so. There is no substantive case for thermite or its variants playing a significant role in turning the WTC (mostly) to fine dust. Theirs is a distraction, a limited hangout, a fall back story for the perps who, once the 9/11official version I fairy tale lies in ruins, trot out version II: muslim terrorists used internally-placed explosives to bring down the WTC—ridiculous version II.
See the following:
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&...
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/a/PhillipsCritique/physicist_criti...
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/a/why_thermite.html
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/a/Hustler/Hustler.html#rebuttal
And most important of all IMO:
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/scientific/JonesScientificMethod.html
Excerpts:
1 Where is the proof of concept for the thermite hypothesis? Wikipedia Encyclopedia defines "Proof of concept" as "a short and/or incomplete realization (or synopsis) of a certain method or idea(s) to demonstrate its feasibility, or a demonstration in principle, whose purpose is to verify that some concept or theory is probably capable of exploitation in a useful manner. The proof of concept is usually considered a milestone on the way of a fully functioning prototype." Dr. Jones has never laid it out.
2 Where is the proof that thermite has EVER been used to bring down major buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)? To our knowledge thermite has never been used to bring down skyscrapers.
3 Where is the proof that thermate has EVER been used to bring down major buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)? To our knowledge thermate has never been used to bring down skyscrapers.
4 Where is the proof that nano-enhanced thermite has EVER been used to bring down major buildings in controlled demolition (not simply cleaning up debris)? To our knowledge nano-enhanced thermite has never been used to bring down skyscrapers. Dr. Jones has criticized the competing hypotheses of others as "wacky, unproven ideas." We wonder if the same denunciation applies to thermite.
...
3 Exactly what volume of thermite/thermate/nano-enhanced thermite would be required in total to be placed in the building to generate enough energy?
4 Exactly where did it need to be placed? Over how much surface area in the building did it have to be placed? For example, what x% of every beam, y% of every floor, z% of every wall, etc.? How thick would it have to be against various steel columns, beams, concrete, etc.? Derrick Grimmer attempted one calculation along these lines and found that thermite would need to be slightly less than 3 inches thick over the surface of every box column [Grimmer].
5 How many hours of labor would it take to cover every surface of the building, carefully avoiding detection by WTC office workers? Grimmer's calculation ignores the much greater volume of the floors. In any event, thermite does not explode and pulverize. It cannot explain the data.
...
2 Exactly how was ignition accurately controlled? How was it timed? Where is the experiment demonstrating it? Has thermite ever been ignited by remote control? Have multiple thermite ignitions ever been set off with exact timing by remote control? How many remote control radio frequencies would be required to do this? How many ignition devices would be needed to cut 236 outer columns and 47 core columns on each of the 110 floors? An ignition device on each column on each floor would total 31,130 ignitions. None of this would cut floor trusses or pulverize the concrete floors or any of the WTC contents, much less steel beams.
Dr. Jones says the buildings "collapsed," but he does not show the exact mechanism of "collapse," he does not model it (just like NIST does not model it), and he does not run experiments that demonstrate it. Of course such modeling is futile because the buildings did not collapse, they were blown to kingdom come. Where was the stack of all the steel from each tower at Ground Zero?
Etc, etc.
On 10/28/09 2:08 AM, "jfetzer@d.umn.edu" wrote:
> Well, I had several conversations about being involved in this event
> and offered to provide 100 copies of The Madison Conference DVD for
> them to use in their promotions, but they appear to have decided to
> follow another path, which is their right and privilege.
>
> What troubles me is that Gage/Jones/and the rest of their group are
> unwilling to talk about who was involved or why it was done. That, it
> seems to me, is most unlikely to motivate anyone into fervent support
> for a reinvestigation of 9/11, because it is too abstract.
>
> Suppose the buildings had been turned into millions of cubic yards of
> dust using nano-thermite, which I doubt. What does that mean? Who had
> motive, means, and opportunity? That is where Gage/Jones/and the rest
> sputter into silence. They won't go there, which is a complete waste.
>
> The way they approach 9/11, what happened is a scientific and technical
> curiosity, not a massive deception of the public to instill fear and to
> bring about support for wars of aggression they otherwise would not have
> supported. So who gained? Who was responsible? They offer only silence.
>
> Quoting "Michael Morrissey" :
>
>> Official story humming -- I like that.
>>
>>
>> On 28.10.2009, at 00:15, The Webfairy wrote:
>>
>>> After years of official story humming, silence and censorship
>>> toward anything 911, Pacifica's WBAI NYC is using 911"Truth" of the
>>> Thermite/Richard Gage/David Ray Griffin variety for their
>>> fundraising efforts.
>>
>
Views: 93
Comment
-
Comment by Thoth II on October 28, 2009 at 7:47pm
-
"3 Exactly what volume of thermite/thermate/nano-enhanced thermite would be required in total to be placed in the building to generate enough energy?" That is probably the crux of it, of course, if you placed enough thermite, it probably would destroy the towers (but still, it would probably melt more than pulverize); but the amount would be ridiculously enormous. So that wasn't the main method of destruction. I still think it is mini nukes emplaced near the core columns (a) wouldn't need that many (b) the energy would be largely absorbed by pulverization energy and not that much left for heat (c) what heat was left would probably be enough to cause the rapid oxidizing (rusting) of the metal (d) and now the perps are still needing aborptive material like dirt and concrete to absorb the radioactive fall out (similar to the old CD bomb shelters in the Cuban missile crises). I just don't get the Jones boys' stubborn resistance to anything but thermite ; why in the world would they cling from start to finish with that even as new evidence unfolded? I remember Steve Jones in one interviewing angrily lamenting that he did check out the alternatives like lasers and ruled them out. But it had to be a joke of a superficial analysis at that.
-
Comment by Shallel Octavia on October 28, 2009 at 6:02pm
-
Found the Cucurullo show, http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/jf_wc_042009.mp3
And the show with Ace, http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Ace%20Baker%20-%20Media%2...
-
-
Here's Michael's MITOP link: http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/logical6
I'll leave it to you all to find "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce":)
-
-
Sounds like the "Kitchen Sink Theory". What ever happened to rock superhero Cucurullo anyway? You interviewed him, right Jim? I'll have to look for it, or maybe Andrew has it on his archive. Also as you probably know, one of my favorites was the audio and media analysis by Ace you aired, where he describes it as "building a bridge" from no planes to small planes to missiles to drone airliners. It just is a psy-op to blur events in peoples minds. We need to be able to post audio files here.
Also, there's an element of pushing your face in it by the perps - "Look what we can get by you in broad daylight." or as Michael says in his MITOP article.
BTW, the MITOP theory was originated by Trey Parker and Matt Stone in episode 148 of Comedy Central's South Park, "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" which first aired on October 11, 2006.
Blessings All
-
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 28, 2009 at 3:43pm
-
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:37:18 -0500 [03:37:18 PM CDT]
From: "Jack & Sue White"
To: "Morgan Reynolds"
Subject: Re: WBAI planehugging
Let me interject, if I may be so bold, something learned in researching the JFK affair since 1963.
Everyone discussing 911 seems ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that THEIR SOLUTION is the ONLY
SOLUTION. The truth is that their solution may be only a small part of the whole solution. The
real truth may be a combination of many elements. Let me draw a parallel to the JFK plot:
Some say the Mafia did it.
Some say Castro did it.
Some say the Soviets did it.
Some say the Military did it.
Some say the M-I-C did it.
Some say the Secret Service did it.
Some say the FBI did it.
Some say the CIA did it.
Some say political extremists did it.
Some say international bankers did it.
Some say Lyndon Johnson did it.
And some say LEE HARVEY OSWALD did it.
There are adherents to each of these "theories".
But the TRUTH is that ALL OF THE ABOVE had a part in the plot! Ample evidence points to
every one of these. The adherents of each theory work to discredit those who believe otherwise.
That is a genius of the plan...many trails, each sprinkled with a modicum of truth. Researchers
battle each other for 50 years about their pet theories, even though the perpetrators are long
since in their graves. The official myth lives on, despite the truth now being known.
Some of you exhibit the same HUGGING of your own pet theory, not recognizing that it may
be JUST A SMALL PORTION OF SOME MUCH BIGGER PLAN that is not yet known.
Does the term FAIL-SAFE mean anything to you? How about REDUNDANCY? How about
MISDIRECTION?
What if the actual plot had built into it many redundancies to make it fail-safe? What if it had
misdirection and false trails and smoke and mirrors and other magic tricks? What if the
destructive methods (for fail-safeness) included CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION, THERMITE,
THERMATE, NANO-THERMITE, DYNAMITE, DEW WEAPONS, ATOMIC BOMBS, etc....well,
you get the point. Or do you?
Misdirection may have included HIJACKED PLANES, HIJAKERS, FAKED FILMS, FALSE
WITNESSES, FAKED PHOTOS, PLANTED EVIDENCE...etc. etc.
Do not disparage those who disagree with you. You BOTH may be right!
I favor DEW weapons being one of the methods of destruction...but I do not discount
conventional demolition, thermate/thermite, atomic or any other secret (unknown military)
means of destruction, used singly or in combination.
To insist on a SINGLE THEORY is to follow the folly of JFK researchers.
Jack
About
Welcome to
9/11 Scholars Forum
© 2024 Created by James H. Fetzer.
Powered by
You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!
Join 9/11 Scholars Forum