Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:21:47 -0500 [11:21:47 AM CDT]
From: "Morgan Reynolds"
To: "email@example.com" , "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:
And most important of all IMO:
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?
On 10/28/09 2:08 AM, "firstname.lastname@example.org" 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.