The Great Thermite Debate...

[William Seger]

6. "two working eyes and a nose to sniff out the stench"

The problem for the "truth movement" is that Cole's odious bullshit doesn't stand up so well with people who also employ their brains.

Example: Cole claims that molten aluminum is silvery in color, not glowing orange like the stuff seen flowing out of the building. It's amazing that someone with an engineering degree is apparently unaware that, while aluminum is silvery at it's melting point, it will glow just like any other metal if it's heated above it's melting point.

Example: Cole shows the video of the fireman saying he saw "molten steel." The fireman never says why he assumed it was steel when there are far better guesses available (e.g. aluminum or even glass), but since it's absurd to think that steel melted by therm*te when the buildings were destroyed would still be molten weeks later, this particular piece of "evidence" seems to only appeal to people who haven't actually given it any real thought.

Example: If therm*te had been used to destroy the buildings, the debris pile should be full of steel showing thermite-like melting. In fact, even though the steel was inspected by private-citizen, volunteer engineers and scientists who saved "interesting" pieces, there is not a single piece of any such evidence of thermite cutting or melting. Instead, Cole shows us a sample that he must know is the result of a eutectic, sulfidization reaction that took place at a temperature of only about 1000 degrees C over a period of hours or days, so it is cetainly not the result of thermate burning. Cole should know that because that was the conclusion of the study from which he obtained that photo.

Example: Cole shows the iron-rich microspheres found in the dust and claims them to be the product of therm*te burning. In fact, the lightweight concrete used in the building included fly ash, which is full of iron-rich microspheres produced in incinerators. In fact, there are many other possible sources, such as the welding that was done to erect the building. So, if anyone wants to claim that there are also microspheres produced by therm*te when the towers were destroyed, they need to start by explaining how they separated out those microspheres from the ones that we know were already in the building. For some strange reason, "truther scientists" like Cole and Jones completely duck that issue, too.

Example: Cole informs us that the "peer reviewed" Harrit/Jones paper found nanothermite in the dust. In reality, what the data in that paper shows that the stuff does not look like or behave like any known form of thermite, so these scientific geniuses "conclude" it must be some sort of mysterious secret, military, "highly engineered" supernanothermite. After completely failing to do the types of tests that could have proved any thermitic reaction at all occurred (i.e., that their samples weren't simply burning in air, which they certainly appear to be doing), or that such a reaction was even theoretically possible (e.g. whether or not there was any elemental aluminum present rather than aluminum oxide), the paper offers up conclusions that aren't even supported by the data it does present! As the paper itself pretends to admit then refute, the most obvious explanation is that they are simply looking at paint chips, yet the paper's section that purports to rule out paint is astonishingly inadequate even to non-scientists: These "scientists" didn't even bother trying to find out what kind of paint was used in the building! Instead of looking in the NIST report to find that, Jones scraped some paint off of BYU's stadium bleachers and says, nope, not the same stuff. DUH! And then we find out that the chips are chemical identical to the rustproofing paint used on the floor joists! Don't you think an intellectually honest person should be embarrassed by that? But no, these "truthers" refuse to give up their "peer reviewed" paper after having paid to have it published. But when a paper is that absurd, the issue of whether or not it had any "peer review" is moot, since abject horseshit obviously survived whatever review it may have had.

There's a lot more that could be said about that one video, but that's more than enough to make this point: If the debate is over, T S, then it's because "truthers" have walked away from it, leaving a shitload of issues and unanswered questions about their claims. Most people take that as a concession, T S.