CrazyChainsaw has you pretty well covered, but since you addressed me...
You're not bringing us anything new. You're still simply looking for excuses to prop up your belief in thermite. There is no evidence for thermite.
The newsletter you linked falls well below the standard of a scientific journal. However, even so, you cherry-picked it:
(
Source) (Emphasis added)
They're talking about quantities of thermite used to ignite
residential structures, not cut steel beams or pillars. There is no "slag" created. Much less thermite is involved.
The telltale signs of thermite are three:
- When burned, thermite creates a dazzling, brilliant fountain of light and sparks, enough to be seen at a great distance. It is remotely possible this was contained behind interior walls or obscured by smoke in the WTC 7 case, so we'll give this one a pass, but you cannot suppose thermite at the perimeter in any structure for this reason alone.
- Thermite leaves behind a white powdery residue of metal oxides, and this will survive virtually any heating. It's quite characteristic. That's one of the "burn patterns" they're talking about above. None was found. No thermite.
- Thermite also creates, as a product of its function, melted iron. In the quantities needed to even weaken a single significant member of any WTC structure, it must have left a blob or ingot of iron or iron slag. This slag would survive the debris fire afterward, and thus would have been recovered in cleanup. None have been found. No thermite.
Additionally, the "weird" elements listed above are because the arsonists are using
homemade thermite. They can't get hold of reagent-quality aluminum or iron oxide, but instead file down bent automobile wheels and rusty pipes. This is not what we expect in the mythical WTC 7 thermite case, unless you expect me to believe the NWO hired a batallion of amateur arsonists to homebrew a few truckloads of ghetto thermite. Not likely. More likely, the NWO would use pure iron oxide and aluminum, which leave no "unusual" chemicals at all. Why give themselves away by adding relatively exotic metals? There's no point.
We don't. No ironworker indicated anything unusual. Dr. Jones's EDX results, as explained here endlessly by Dr. Greening and others, appear to be incorrect. Dr. Jones has not published his results or done anything else that would permit verification.
Likewise, studies of the
smoke plume,
dust, and
debris found nothing unusual at all.
There is no evidence of thermite. What you've brought us isn't evidence of thermite, and also isn't interpreted properly.
Find a new hypothesis.
First and foremost, this is not my hypothesis. If it were, I would have gone about supporting it in a much different way.
Secondly, you made a fallacy in determining what evidence is and isn't.
For example; the police enter a crime scene at a store. A shooting is reported. However, there is no gun, no bullet casings and no bullet hole. However one of the suspects has traces of gunpowder on his right wrist that is consistent with firing a gun. The problem is, the store sells and makes fireworks. Thus, there are exact chemicals present in the entire store.
The man denies being the shooter. When the traces of gun powder are presented to him, he says there is loads of gun powder all over the building.
Would the police dismiss the gun powder on his right wrist as evidence that he was the shooter? Of course not.
They would consider it
partial/incomplete/unconfirmed evidence and try to rule out other causes. If the other causes could not be ruled out, it would then NOT be evidence.
Again, thermate like residue, and microsperes would be expected in a thermate reaction.
This evidence, at the moment, remains inconclusive because natural causes have not been ruled out yet (truth movements job to do it). And no natural causes have been shown to show these effects in the lab (and reported in a journal or official report).
From a debunkers point of view, the burdon of proof in on the CT and thus, no complete/direct/hard evidence exists.
From the point of view of a skeptic, signs of thermate use are reported, but at the moment inconclusive. But, just because the evidence is inconclusive, it doesn't mean NO evidence exists (as demonstrated with the example above-->partial/incomplete evidence can have merit)
On a different note;
You are a NASA Engineer and I am nothing of the sort. I expect you to know more about these things than I, especially considering your high debunking status.
However you have misled me more than once on this thread about thermate.
1. You said barium nitrate was not reported and therefore disproves Thermate--->this is untrue becuase barium nitrate is not always used
2. You also said the by products of a thermate reaction could not cause sulfidation.--->this is not true considering a by-product is SO2.
Since you are a NASA engineer and have high debunking status, these simple mistakes cannot be forgiven and give me no choice but to be skeptical of your "no evidence" claim.
I think you pulled similar reasoning with DRG in your debunking of his book; debunking 911 debunking. So please don't take it personally.
