Frank Legge Letter in the Journal of 9/11 Studies: Thermite Questions Answered
Frank Legge answers some of the common misunderstandings about thermite and its variants. This information is very important in understanding the thermate evidence discovered by Steven Jones and how it relates to his controlled demolition hypothesis.
Frank Legge [in bold], Jan 11, 2007 (Peer-reviewed Letter)
[Responding to a] paper by Wood and Reynolds, dated December 14, 2006:“The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis”.
[Wood and Reynolds in italics]:
Steven Jones claimed that nano-enhanced thermite or thermate could account for pulverization of the Twin Towers. One difficulty with his hypothesis is that nano-enhanced thermite apparently did not exist in 2001 and only recently has the Department of Defense awarded contracts to prove and develop such a product.
This is incorrect. The history of nanothermite appears to go back far enough to be considered as a possible explosive in 2001. Here is a patent which is dated several years earlier.
19960722 (July 22, 1996)
EFFECTIVE DATE: 1996/07/15
Where is the proof of concept for the hypothesis that thermite, thermate, and/or nano-enhanced thermite can do any of the things he claimed it did at the WTC, much less explain how angle-cut columns at ground level had any relevance to what pulverized the buildings? He fails to explain how a cutting/melting mechanism can pulverize.
The cutting/melting process requires incendiary thermite/thermate. Jones doesn’t have to explain how such a process can pulverize for the simple reason that he never said it did. To demand an explanation is therefore not logical. [Note: Thermite/thermate does not explode as Legge explains below—therefore it would not “pulverize” the WTC buildings].
What he did say was that nanothermite was explosive, which is true, and therefore might have been the explosive which pulverized the concrete.
Thermite does not explode and pulverize. It cannot explain the data.
Note the words here: “thermite does not explode”. Jones has never said that it did. It is therefore not logical to ask this question.
Why does Dr. Jones continue to boast that he uses "the scientific method" after it has been pointed out repeatedly that his thermite hypothesis does not account for the data? [Reynolds and Wood] Does not science throw a failed hypothesis overboard after the evidence repeatedly contradicts it?
Jones has never claimed that thermite or its variants account alone for all the observations. There is obvious evidence that incendiary thermite was used and there is evidence that the towers exploded which may have been caused by nanothermite or may have been caused by something else, such as conventional demolition explosives.