And Now For Some "Science"
I finally got around to listening to Fetzer's recent interview of Steven Jones on his radio show. For the most part it is pretty inane, they spend a lot of time talking over each other and basically discussing whose argument less scientific. In this case I think they are both right. This part from Jones, who actually comes off relatively less kooky overall, left my jaw dropping:
Demolitions of buildings using thermite has been, as you pose it, has been done a number of times you see. This is now called thermite arson. And there are a number of buildings that have been destroyed, and it has been proven, that thermite was used to bring down to demolish (unintelligible).
Yeah, sure they have. So you should have no problems naming these buildings and the demolition firms involved.
He later goes on to claim incredibly:
Superthermite is an explosive, it is used routinely now.
Oh really? "Routinely"? Then why is it the only mention of superthermite you could find for your paper was about laboratory research in this area?
Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in theIt later goes on to summarize:
Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.
However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.
If the use of this is "routine", one would think you could find an actual example of it existing outside of a laboratory experiment for your "peer reviewed" paper.