Thanks for this great link On Jan 29, 7:27 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Excellent Technology, and photos: > > http://stj911.org/jones/focus_on_goal.html > > As scientists, we look at the evidence, perform experiments, and apply > the Scientific Method. The Greek method was to look at the evidence > (superficially) and then try to explain things through logic and > debate. The Greeks came up with various ideas in this way -- such as > the geocentric theory in which the Earth was at the center of the > universe, and all the stars and planets revolved around the earth. > There were problems with this geocentric explanation, but Plato > insisted that they must "save the hypothesis," and plausible > explanations were found to account for anomalies -- i such as the > retrograde motion of Mars. The philosophical debates and discussions > were seemingly endless; the Dark Ages ensued. > > Along came Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and others with their > experiments and observations, and the centuries-old Greek philosophy- > based notions began to crumble. Galileo observed through a telescope > that Jupiter had moons -- which revolved around Jupiter (not the > Earth). He was threatened with torture if he did not recant his > explanation (that the Earth was not at the center). He suffered house > arrest but not torture as he quietly continued his experiments. > > In the lifetime of Newton, another experimenter who challenged the > Greek approach, the scientific community worked out a system whereby > scientific studies would be published after review by peers -- > qualified experts who could judge the quality of the research. Peer- > reviewed technical journals arose and the peer-review process brought > order to the relative chaos of work up to that time. Now experiments > could be done and written up, then peer-reviewed and published. Peer- > reviewed papers would draw the attention of others. To give an example > of using the modern scientific method, a few colleagues and I are > doing experiments and making observations in a scientific approach to > what really happened at the World Trade Center. It is NOT merely a > plausible explanation or debates about "possibilities" that we seek. > Rather, having seen strong indications of foul play (see > journalof911studies.com/Intersecting_facts_and_Theories_on_911.pdf ) > we are looking for hard evidence that would clearly verify an > intentional crime beyond that of 19 hijackers. Ours is a forensic > investigation, looking for a "smoking gun," which would then lead to a > serious criminal investigation. > > I do not plan to make a career out of 9/11 research, and I am not > making money from my investigations anyway. We need a formal, solid > investigation of the 9/11 crimes committed, not a long-term study > which endlessly debates all alternatives. I seek such solid evidence > of an insider crime (beyond a reasonable doubt) that some of us will > successfully demand a criminal investigation to confront key > individuals who may have insider information -- within one year, if > possible-- not many. > > So what evidence is likely to lead to such a criminal investigation? > > As identified in my talk at the University of California at Berkeley, > there are four areas of 9/11 research that are so compelling that they > may quickly lead to the goal of a solid investigation of 9/11 as an un- > solved crime scene. These four areas are: > > 1. Fall time for WTC 7. > 2. Fall times for the Towers. > 3. Challenging the NIST report and Fact Sheet. > 4. Evidence for use of Thermate reactions: What the WTC dust and > solidified metal reveal. > > * Please note that I do not focus only on the thermate-hypothesis, > and I do research in all four areas above. Details are given in my > talk, available here:www.911blogger.com/node/4622Also: > video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9210704017463126290 ) > > There are other lines that may compel a criminal investigation even > before one of the above "hard science" research lines bears fruit: > > 5. Whistleblower statements -- including some individuals yet to > emerge. > 6. Who made the stock-market "put-option" trades on American and > United Air Lines in the week before 9/11, indicating clear > foreknowledge of the attacks coupled with greed? > 7. The fact that the WTC dust was declared quite safe by the EPA/ > National Security Council when it fact scientists had proven it to be > toxic, and the many people now clamoring for justice after being hurt > and misled. > 8. Calls for impeachment for war issues, e.g., from a state > legislature or Congress, which scrutinizes the "Bush Doctrine," then > opens the 9/11 question. > 9. Pressure from 9/11 Family members, firemen and others for > answers. > 10. Direct appeals to Senators and Congresspersons -- who are > charged with an oversight role. I initiated a Petition to this effect, > demanding release of government-held information related to 9/11, > which has since been signed by over 10,000 people. And I am in contact > now with the Congressman from my state, seeking information and > remedy. > > We have found evidence for thermates in the molten metal seen pouring > from the South Tower minutes before its collapse, in the sulfidation > and high-temperature corrosion of WTC steel, and in the residues found > in the WTC dust. (Our sample originated from an apartment at 113 Cedar > Street across from the WTC; chain of custody direct from the collector > J. MacKinlay to Dr. Steven Jones). Many other details are given in the > peer-reviewed paper here: journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ > WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf . Other > cutter-charges such as HMX and RDX may have also been used; but again, > solid evidence for just one type of incendiary or explosive would be > sufficient to compel a criminal investigation. > > Experiments continue, as shown in the photos below, and the results > are consistent with thermate having been used in on 9/11/2001. We have > a series of experiments planned, along with analyses. This research > takes time. > Above: In a fraction of a second, thermate cuts horizontally through a > steel cup. Notice the high-temperature corrosion which occurred. > > Right: 1999: "Invention offers a thermite based apparatus and method > for cutting target material [eg, steel] of a substantial thickness ... > linear.. cutting action ..." A prototype has been used to cut through > a steel I-beam. > > Below: Proof of Concept. The photograph below shows the one-hole proto- > type device I built to produce a thermate-jet. Thermate is the red > powder in the steel base. The prototype worked well, and the thermate- > jet cut through a piece of structural steel in a fraction of a second.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
