9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

It's the theme of Mission Impossible, at any rate. I think now's the time to post the first page of an article I linked to a bit ago...
**************************************
Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report
by Alan Miller alan.miller@PatriotsQuestion911.com

Official Account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up”

September 23, 2007 –Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,” said Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates during the seventies. “There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions,” he said. McGovern, who is also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11.1 During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern returned the award2 in 2006 in protest of the current George W. Bush Administration’s advocacy and use of torture.

In his blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote3: “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole “war on terror” was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole--- with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of ‘paranoid conspiracy theorists,’ my highest possible recommendation.”

William Christison, a 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysisalso describes the 9/11 Commission Report as a “joke” and offers even more outspoken criticism. In a 2006 audio interview4 he said, "We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all.”
**************************************

The article runs another 3 pages, with a 4th for references. You may want to take a look at it:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article CIA Veterans Challenge 911.pdf

Very funny

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The person who took that picture clearly didn't care much for placing the pieces on the correct squares, laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps you never saw the response I gave you a long time ago to that very same statement. It's there somewhere in the mighty tangle. I didn't include the post number, but I saved my response. Here it is:
The following video clips show Michael Ware who is an assistant Professor from NIST, trying to recreate what was observed flowing out of WTC 2 just seconds before it collapsed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY


Apparently an official story defender did another test that seemed to vindicate the 'molten aluminum claim'. He failed. Jerry Lobdill, in his "Molten What?" article, explains why:
**************************************
Dr. Wood has claimed that the liquid metal flowing out of the 82nd floor of WTC-2 could be aluminum on the basis of her experiment, wherein a titanium ladle full of pure aluminum was heated until both the ladle and the liquid aluminum were orange hot. The aluminum, as it heated up, appeared to radiate with a less intense energy than the titanium, but the color was the same. As expected, the aluminum melted at 660 degrees Centigrade, and at that temperature the radiant spectrum and the emissivity of aluminum conspired to make the liquid aluminum appear silvery (no apparent glowing). As the temperature of the aluminum rose it began to glow with the same color as the ladle.

The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum on the basis of Dr. Wood’s experiment is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.

Dr. Jones demonstrated by experiment that organic material floats on the liquid aluminum and burns up (oxidizes). Further, the liquid aluminum in this experiment was never heated to the point where it no longer appeared silvery. This experiment gave the expected result. Organic material would not change the color vs temperature behavior of aluminum.

The conclusion of this analysis is inescapable. The liquid metal was molten iron.
**************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok. You may want to read the following excerpt from an article by Physicist Steven Jones, with Jeffrey Farrer, Wesley Lifferth, John Ellsworth, Jared Dodson, and Jacob Stevenson, from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University.

They don't seem to rule out that aluminum can be orange, but not under daylight conditions. And then there's the fact that "video footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal ", not orange. But I'll let you read the article for yourself...
www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/Papers/Molten metal.doc

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Alright. As you know, the alternate story generally posits that explosives were used. Most if not all ASBs (Alternate Story Believers, I made the term up just now) believe that the temperatures were indeed much higher, but that the fires initiated by the planes and barely sustained afterwards had nothing to do with it. I'm curious: what is the official explanation for them not taking more samples from the impact floors?

That was addressed in what I quoted. I will requote the relevant section:
**************************
[NIST]"The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. (p 125-6/175-6) "

[Kevin Ryan]Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
**************************

It's nanothermite, super thermite or thermate. This superfragilistic stuff doesn't discredit the fact that this explosive does exist and its capabilities have been proven. As to soft steel, put the comment in a relevant context; explain soft steel in what?

Nanothermite is clearly a type of thermite. But its properties are different then regular thermite, mainly that it is an explosive whereas regular thermite is only an incendiary. It may be that at first Steven Jones was unaware of nanothermite, or thermate. I could certainly believe that Steven Jones' original expertise in explosives was somewhat lacking; he had been studying energetics of a different type prior to 9/11, namely muon catalyzed fusion. However, after he began doubting the official story, I believe that he made it his business to learn a great deal regarding explosives. The evidence of this is clear in my mind and in the minds of many more.

 

What makes you feel that way?

 

But thermite is really not that great for doing THIS job. There are far FAR better materials easily available, that would do a much better job. Thermite is good for welding large chunks of steel together. Nanothermite is still in development, and large enough quantities to do the job would be hard to come by, and since it's such an exotic material, Islamic terrorists wouldn't have access to it. Why use a material that if discovered would immediately point to something other than terrorists?

There are many commercial grade demolition explosives that are made to do this kind of job..Why not just regular old HE, instead of something exotic? Common sense says, "pick the tool that best does the job".

 

That was a drunk post..I was being sarcastic....since I have been trying to use a common sense argument here lately.

 

When did I say otherwise? And how does this change anything? If anything, the temperature should have been -less- there if it was caused by office fires alone. After all, no plane hit WTC 7. The theory propagated in the article is that diesel fuel tanks were the cause. But this was later discredited by NIST. Perhaps there was a fatal flaw in the theory that even NIST couldn't cover up, but there is some irony here: The 'diesel fuel' explanation sounds more plausible then that it was just office fires alone. I have a strong feeling that not everyone was paid off in FEMA and -someone- who played a part in the report felt that office furniture alone didn't have a chance in hell of evaporating steel, which would have required temperatures of 5000 degrees.

The source article is here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63

That is a good question, isn't it? Perhaps it's hard to wrap your head around the concept of a government official trying to tow the party line, but do you believe it may be because it didn't mesh well with the idea that office fires alone were its cause?

Yep:
**************************************************
The unexplained presence of molten metal at the World Trade Center (WTC) puzzled Jones and he contacted this writer to confirm the reports first published in American Free Press in 2002. These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.

Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.

Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.
**************************************************

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cutter_charges_brought_down_wt.html

The New York Times article doesn't specify how many people found evidence for the evaporated steel. The person who mentioned there was evidence of evaporated steel was Dr. Barnett. The New York times article said this:
***************************************
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."
***************************************

Unlike the case of the firefighters, I haven't seen any FEMA employees saying that this was the case. A lack of evidence is not evidence of its lack, but there's no smoking gun there at any rate.

However, writing this got me to thinking of the one firefighter who -outright- said that there was high up interference, Paul Isaac Jr. I've now found the article from the reporter who spoke to him as well as to another firefighter. Here is the relevant excerpt:
***********************************
Before beginning this article, I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul, along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of the towers. He explained to me that, many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but theyre afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Departments Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. There were definitely bombs in those buildings, he told me. He explained to me that, if the building had pancaked as its been called, the falling floors would have met great resistance from the steel support columns, which would have sent debris flying outward into the surrounding blocks. I asked him about the trusses, and quoted the history channels dont trust a truss explanation for the collapses. He responded in disbelief, and told me, You could never build a truss building that high. A slight wind would knock it over! Those buildings were supported by reinforced steel. Building dont just implode like that; this was a demolition.

Just after the disaster, Firefighter Louie Cacchioli said, We think there were bombs set in the building. Notice he said we. At 9:04, just after flight 175 collided with the South Tower, a huge explosion shot 550 feet into the air from the U.S. Customs House known as WTC 6. A huge crater scars the ground where this building once stood. Something blew up WTC 6 - it wasnt a plane; it must have been a bomb of some sort.
***********************************
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html

 

You know how much money goes 'missing' from the Pentagon every year? I believe there is some irony in the fact that then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech regarding this very fact the day before 9/11. Here's an excerpt from an article on his speech and more regarding military spending:
*************************************
On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.

He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.

"In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

Just last week President Bush announced, "my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending."

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency's balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records.

"The director looked at me and said 'Why do you care about this stuff?' It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job," said Minnery.

He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off...
*************************************
http://benfrank.net/patriots/news/national/pentagon_missing_trillions

Exactly.

My guess is that they didn't believe it would ever be discovered.

My guess is that regular explosives couldn't have been installed with the same ease with which the thermate was installed. Headspin came up with an interesting possibility way back in March. Here it is:
********************************
have you considered nano alumino-thermic explosives technology manufactured as "frozen smoke"?
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/05/09/record.gel/
this technology has been around since at least the 1990s.

page 19-20 Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives
https://www.llnl.gov/str/pdfs/10_00.2.pdf

....or maybe you think the perps used a few dozen flower pots?

Aerogels/frozen-smoke is an amazing insulator too, excellent for fireproofing.

fireproofing work carried out in the towers seemed to match the exact floors where the planes impacted:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272
********************************
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=44231&t=99915

I personally think that while this may have been part of it, it wasn't necessarily (there may have been another reason that it was done, however, as is suggested here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272)

I have mentioned more evidence that explosives were installed in the past in this forum. I guess I could attempt to dig it out of the mighty tangle if someone is interested...

 

I haven't seen any evidence for that hypothesis.

 

Laugh if you want. The fact remains, however, that there are numerous issues in regards to the media on and after 9/11. I saw a link somewhere on media sources other then the BBC at one point, but there are so many links regarding 9/11...

 

The Washington Post is not the BBC. You can claim that the BBC set the standard for 'such pronouncements', but until you show me that the Washington Post -also- retracted its statements, that one still stands. Actually, I'd like to see the BBC retraction again as well. I think the retraction was a little nuanced.

I was merely showing that there was precedent in regards to very suspicious reporting practices by the BBC in regards to 9/11.

What you seem to be saying is that the people who produce BBC television are not the people who produce BBC wire news. But the BBC is a single corporation, and has a few key people at the top.

Yes, the link is broken; it was a long time ago and I imagine that the link was either changed or deleted altogether. I imagine you can find the article in some U.S. libraries. Anyway, let's see this 'followup work' by the BBC.

 

Their support was easily debunked as I have already stated here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2063675&postcount=1684

No, it's not. Because -I- feel it's quite reliable.

Hearsay had nothing to do with it. Once again:
**********************************************
Janette MacKinlay is a visual artist, and a survivor of the World Trade Center attacks. On September 11th, she watched the drama unfold from her apartment across the street from the World Trade Center. Jim, a sculptor who shared the apartment, settled in to observe what was happening, thinking that the towers would burn "all day." When they started to come down, he warned Janette and they quickly hurried out their door as the debris shattered their windows and filled their apartment with dust and debris. Janette wrote a book about her experiences entitled Fortunate: A Personal Diary of 9/11 illustrated with photographs including the artwork, and ikebana flower arrangements she created, as part of her own efforts to heal. Exhibitions of her artwork, included Deception Dollars.

By cosmic synchronicity, the Deception Dollar artist emailed me her name and phone number on the very day that I met Janette, in person, in San Francisco where members of the 9/11 Commission were speaking before the Commonwealth Club. I traded her a David Ray Griffin book- The New Pearl Harbor for a copy of her book, and that was the beginning of our friendship and collaboration. Janette joined the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance and became a vital, active member, treasurer, host, organizer, speaker, as well as a liason between the West Coast and New York City, when she decided to return to her refurbished apartment when she discovered it was available to rent.

Janette also significantly contributed to our scientific understanding of the destruction of the towers, because she saved some of the dust that filled her apartment and passed it on to Steven Jones for analysis. Her sensitivty, experiences, insights, communications skills are acknowledged as priceless gifts to the Truth movement and she is deeply respected and loved by fellow activists.
************************************
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14609

You taken a look at the -quantity- of text I cite? If you could dig it out of the mighty tangle, it would be appreciated.

Between that and fending off a 'mechanic with government contacts' and being a physics professor, perhaps so. You'd have to ask him to be sure, however.

Laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Agreed. Feel free to try to find the answer yourself if it's something you're concerned about. I've certainly researched my fair share.

 

Ofcourse. Otherwise, I would have settled with the official ones long ago.

 

Just pouring gas on a fire, ey KM...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You know I'm going to have to de-bunk that in 8 or so pages.

and NOTHING will ever rival the "Star Wars vs. Star Trek" thread. I'd like to do a calculation on how long it would take the average reader to get through the whole thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thermite is heavy...frozen smoke is super duper light. Two totally different things. Thermite is notoriously hard to ignite...you put any separation between the particles, as in a foam or something, and the reaction would fizzle out.

If the "Insiders" asked me to lead the black ops team in charge of bringing down the towers...I'd use "collar" charges. Shaped charges enclosed in a steel collar, bolted around the central core columns in the basement. I would stage a chemical spill in the parking garage area, and blame it on a stupid truck driver leaking something he shouldn't have been carrying...because people are afraid of "toxic waste" and use the opportunity to get my team in and install them. I'd make sure they looked like part of the structure..and didnt have any wires or blinking lights like you see in the movies.

In addition to the collar charges meant to bring the towers down...I would also install one or more "I'm not bullshitting charges" planted in a very visible place, using a more hollywood style of explosive that would make a big impressive fireball.

Call Channel 5 news, claiming to be Islam terrorists...tell them where to point their cameras, and blow the "Im not bull shitting charge"...then I wait long enough for all of America and the world to be tuned in and blow both tower at the same time on live tv. No need for planes.

 

The 'question' was, why would she fake it?

Perhaps you are employing a form of Bush Science, wherein sources aren't sources. Creating your own reality, if you will, something like what a New York Times magazine writer quoted a Bush aid as saying:
**********************************************
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
**********************************************
http://www.cs.umass.edu/~immerman/play/opinion05/WithoutADoubt.html

From Steven Jones' "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method":

*****************************************
The World Trade Center Dust and the Message of its Iron-rich Microspheres

The provenience of the dust sample used in my study is from an apartment at 113 Cedar St. in New York City. This fourth-floor apartment was the residence of Janette MacKinlay, and was approximately 100 meters or so from the closest Tower, the South Tower. During the collapse of the South Tower on 9/11/2001, the windows of this apartment broke and the apartment was flooded with dust. About a week later, she re-entered the apartment and began clean-up and preserved some of the dust in her apartment.

In this way, the dust represents a snapshot of the WTC collapse, for the dust came from the collapsing Towers and was collected before much clean-up began. Even though the Towers were some distance away, too far for any significant debris from the clean-up operations which were just beginning to accidentally contaminate the apartment, yet they were close enough for the windows to break due to the debris of the South Tower collapse and for the apartment to be filled with collapse- generated dust.

Janette told me that she had a sense, almost a spiritual or reverential feeling (knowing the origin of the dust) to preserve some of it, which she did, placing dust from her apartment into a plastic bag. My first 9/11-related paper appeared on-line in November 2005, and Janette MacKinlay soon learned from it that I was seeking WTC dust and other samples for study. She contacted me and sent me a small sample by mail. Later, I traveled to her new residence in California and obtained a second small sample in the presence of other scientists.
*****************************************

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

Steven Jones' makes it clear that the -only- thing that could have done it was thermate. Not exactly something an artist would stock up on.

Such as?

I'm not sure as to the likelihood of her death if she were to have stayed in her apartment. But the term 'survivor' can also be applied to people who have been emotionally traumatized by an event. I think you should reread this sentence:
"Janette wrote a book about her experiences entitled Fortunate: A Personal Diary of 9/11 illustrated with photographs including the artwork, and ikebana flower arrangements she created, as part of her own efforts to heal."

Beats me what you're smelling. It seems that you're hell bent on not accepting 9/11 as anything other then what the mass media tells you it was and denying any other possibility. I'm guessing from the above statement that you yourself are a republican. Is that the case?

Not now, no. I have no idea what her stance was immediately after 9/11. On 9/11 and for sometime after (perhaps about a year), I believed the official story. This changed, however, the more I read up on what happened. I have no idea when she decided that 9/11 was an inside job, but it seems clear that she feels that way now.

Sounds reasonable.

Not sure as to when he announced his findings. As to when she sent him the material:
*****************************************
My first 9/11-related paper appeared on-line in November 2005, and Janette MacKinlay soon learned from it that I was seeking WTC dust and other samples for study. She contacted me and sent me a small sample by mail.
*****************************************

You were mistaken as to when he received the sample, so perhaps you're also mistaken as to when Steven Jones announced his findings.

Their reasoning has already been debunked. Here is its refutation once more:
********************************************
In question 12 NIST states that, “Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.”iv Now, bear in mind that NIST admittedly did not test available WTC steel samples for “explosives or thermite residues.”v Therefore, NIST’s above response seems more of a rhetorical answer to a hypothetical set of facts regarding the use of thermite. So, I will also address the use of thermite in hypothetical terms, as it is the scientists who must test the material (to the extent it still exists) for such substances. It is the scientists who must review and interpret the data.

The operative word used by NIST in their answer to question 12 regarding “duration for cut” is the word “can”.vi This is not a parsing of words. NIST states that thermite “can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.” In actual fact, thermite also “can” cut through a structural steel target material in less than one second.vii Moreover, there are at least two devices that have the capability of cutting through steel in a matter of fractions of a second.viii

Next, in NIST’s hypothetical, they state that the thermite would “need to have been somehow held in direct contact” with the target material (In this case, we are referring to structural steel). Here the operative words are “need to have been.” NIST claims that thermite must be held in direct contact with structural steel in order for it to slice through it.x

Does thermite have to be held in direct contact with structural steel in order for it to react and slice through the target material? No. To the contrary, an apparatus developed in 1999-2001 actually requires that the nozzle of the linear thermite cutting apparatus be at a “controlled stand-off” distance from the target material.” The term “stand-off distance” is defined as having the elongated nozzle positioned “generally adjacent” to a target material to be cut.xii The term “generally adjacent” is further defined as requiring the nozzle to be approximately 1/16 inch to 1⁄4 inch away from the target material (depending on the thickness of the material to be cut).xiii Moreover, the “somehow held” aspect of NIST’s statement is readily dealt with in available patents.xiv The ease that such devices can be attached to a target surface is quite evident, and can be accomplished by various conventional means.xv

NIST also raises the issue of inconspicuous placement of thermite in their hypothetical. NIST intimates that such surreptitious placement of hypothetical incendiaries would not be possible. Although the issue of inconspicuous behavior is not a scientific matter, the patents do suggest accommodations for ease of deployment in the field .xvi

NIST next states that ignition of the apparatus would likely be by remote. Assuming NIST’s claim regarding remote detonation is correct, it seems that various embodiments of the linear thermite cutting device do address NIST’s concerns quite admirably. For example, the device patented in February 2001 indicates that conventional fuses from “Pyrofuse Corporation in Mt. Vernon, N.Y.” may be utilized as the activation device and can be accessed for remote ignition.xvii

So as can be seen, NIST (in an apparent effort to “debunk” some sound questions surrounding the WTC disaster) has created an unnecessary mystique around data and technology--much of which has been available for over half a decade. Rather than dismiss such data, NIST should test available steel samples for residues of thermite and other anomalous substances.
********************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...stions-Regarding-Thermite-by-Robert-Moore.pdf

 

Geoff P, It's flattering to see that you're using my Checkmate slogan (and pictures) whenever you think you've made a good point AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I swear, ever since that first debate you've been scared ever since AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I never thought I'd see the day where you would be paying homage go ME!! AHAHAHAHAHAHA