Chemical Engineer comments on thermite/molten metal and "no planes" theory

[James H. Fetzer]

Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:19:50 -0700 [02:19:50 AM CDT]

To all,

Back around Christmas 2007 I purchased the DVD set for the 2007
conference, The Science and Politics of 911, What's controversial and
what's not and watched all 14 hours of it. See description below.

The full August 2007 Madison, Wisconsin conference on DVD (14 hours,
2-disk set). Professor James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11
Truth, presents the most provocative research in the 9/11 movement.
Subtitled "What's Controversial, What's Not?", here's your chance to
review the most hotly debated 9/11 theories and evidence, delivered by
the researchers themselves. Featuring Dr.s Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds,
Bob Fitrakis and Doug Rokke; authors Jim Marrs, Morgan Reynolds and
Barbara Honneger; and geoscience/space experts Leuren Moret and Alfred
Webre, among others.

This video is still advertised for sale at

http://www.avatarproducts.com

I also watched at least two of the no planer videos, September Clues and
911 Octopus, I believe it was called.

I came away from this with a respect for the case that the proponents
make for both the no planes theory and the directed energy weapons
theory.

I was sad to see the breakup of Scholars for 911 truth, but after
watching this 14 hour DVD set I chose to join Fetzer's group just to
take a stand for the side of the fence that is more in line with my
inclination towards free and open thinking and research.

Since I am an engineer I also chose to join Architects and Engineers for
911 Truth, even though they have a very narrow focus.

How many of the people who I am "replying all" to on this email have
watched all of these videos that I have watched? If you have, and you
think the case that they make has been soundly refuted, then please
refer me to the best articles that refute them so I can get the other
side.

I will admit that getting someone new to entertain the no planes theory
or the directed energy weapons theory is a much harder sell than the
seemingly more conventional thermite theory. It is kind of like trying
to convince someone that the Apollo moon landings were faked as a
prerequisite for understanding that 911 was an inside job.

When I look at the videos of the live TV broadcasts of 911 I see what
appears to be pretty obvious evidence of some monkey business with
regards to the footage that was being shown, even covering up parts of
the videos upon playback. Why would they do this if they did not have
something to hide.

Also, the physics shown in the videos of the planes entering the
buildings does not look right to me. You have the low density and more
fragile object achieving victory over the much higher density and
stronger object upon their coming together in collision. How would it
have looked different if the properties of the two objects were
reversed? The plane being dense and strong and the building being light
and fragile. It would have looked the same as what we saw in the
videos. Therefore the authenticity of these videos is suspect in my
view.

I have read the nanothermite technical paper, and it seems like a solid
technical paper to me. But it just implicates thermite as having been
found at the scene of the crime. It does not explain how much thermite
was used, how it was applied, and how it could account for the massive
amounts of dust as well as molten iron in the subfloors. If
nanothermite can function as a detonating explosive capable of creating
all that dust, that thermite would not have produced molten iron in the
subfloors, because the iron would have been dispersed in the dust and
would have solidified as its small particles cooled in the air. So does
this mean that there was other thermite that functioned as an incendiary
to cut the columns and leave massive amounts of molten iron? But then
what about those massive explosions that we can hear before the
"collapse" of the buildings on the Rick Siegel video? Were those also
thermite explosions?

I think that people of good will should be able to debate these issues
without calling each other disinfo agents. (Am I exposing myself as a
disinfo agent by saying this?)

I also think that it is much more important to unite and focus on the
"who did 911" rather than fight amongst ourselves over the "how it was
done." But the "how" should not be entirely neglected. I appreciate
that there are those who are dedicating themselves to this.

One last comment about Fetzer that popped into my mind. I really
appreciated the debate he did on the subject of 911 with Michael
Shermer. I thought he presented the arguments very well and won the
debate. Many years ago I had read some of Shermer's books as I was
going through my period of skepticism, and was a fan of his, so I was
disappointed when I learned the position he was taking on 911. But I
even appreciate Michael Shermer for his willingness to debate Jim
Fetzer, because how else, if not through debate are people going to be
able to think things through and make up their own minds.

To all our searching for truth,

Mark
T Mark Hightower
San Jose, CA