FACEBOOK
TWITTER
Is "9/11 Truth" Based Upon a False Theory?
by Jim Fetzer (with T. Mark Hightower)
Given my background in the history and the philosophy of science and as a professional scholar, I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth for the purpose of promoting collaborative research on the events of 9/11 by creating a web site, issuing press releases, archiving old research and supporting new research, sponsoring conferences, announcing public presentations, and making efforts to reach out to the public with the results of our investigations. The most intense conflicts in relation to the 9/11 Truth movement, however, turn out to come from within and between research groups, which have all too often found themselves at odds and severely attacked and even denounced one another.
Based upon my experience, I can report with confidence that the three most controversial issues within the 9/11 Truth movement are these:
(1) the Pentagon attack, especially, whether a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, which I have addressed in “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon” and in “Inside Job: Seven Questions about 9/11”;
(2) the planes in New York, especially, whether video fakery was used there, which I have addressed in “New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11” and “Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity”; and,
(3) the demolition of the Twin Towers, especially, how it was done, the dominant theory being that they were destroyed using nanothermite as the principal mechanism, which I address here.
These are questions that can be investigated using scientific reasoning to evaluate alternative hypotheses. The benefits from this appear to be considerable, since, if my efforts are successful, (a) we will have a better understanding of what happened, (b) there will be fewer, less intense conflicts between us, and (c) we will become more cohesive and effective in promoting our objectives and goals. A “9/11 Truth” movement, after all, has to be based on truth, where science is our most reliable method for distinguishing between what is true and what is false, where I can apply my background and the 35 years I spent offering courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning.
The evidence presented in those studies about (1) the Pentagon attack and (2) the planes in New York and (3) the demolition of the Twin Towers here not only falsifies the official account of 9/11 but also implicates the Department of Defense in the case of (1) and the national media in the case of (2) with its deceit and deception in perpetrating fraud on the American people. While I have no doubt that the Mossad was involved, it could not have been responsible for the “stand down” of the US Air Force on 9/11 nor for the failure of the Pentagon to take measures to protect itself from an aircraft, whose approach was known to Dick Cheney and to the pilot of a C-130, who was circling the building at the time. The Mossad is far more likely to have been deeply involved in (3) the destruction of the Twin Towers.
The Nanothermite Theory
While there are many points of agreement within the 9/11 Truth community, which include that the North Tower was hit first but “collapsed” second’; that the fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough for the steel to have weakened, much less melted; that collapse scenarios were not even physically possible; and that NIST has never been able to justify a “point of initiation”, much less present a serious collapse simulation, there has been ongoing controversy over how it was done, where the prevalent theory is that nanothermite was the principal ingredient. If any single event could be said to have inspired the 9/11 Truth community, it was the publication of an article in the Bentham Open Science journal:
Bolstered in their belief by this article by Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”, in The Open Chemical Physics Journal 2 (2009), pp. 7-31, the theory has become dominant in 9/11 research. And this has remained the case even though the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Marie-Paule Pileni, who specializes in nano-materials research at the Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France, resigned her position in protest of its publication, which she regarded as very inappropriate.
The article itself, which was based upon studies of dust that was collected from the immediate vicinity of “Ground Zero”, maintains that nanothermite residue was found in the dust and suggests that this finding holds the key to understanding the means by which the Twin Towers were blown apart. It was done using “explosive nanothermite”. The article asserts, for example,
“The feature of ‘impulse management’ may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level” (page 26);
And concludes with the following (somewhat ambiguous) declaration:
“Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material” (page 31);
. . . which has been widely construed to have established scientifically that nanothermite was found in the dust, that nanothermite is explosive, and that nanothermite was the crucial ingredient in bringing about the conversion of the Twin Towers into a few large pieces and millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which appears to have been critical for the preservation of the bathtub, the shattering of which would have allowed Hudson River water to flood beneath Lower Manhattan, the subway and the PATH train tunnels, causing monumental damage to the most valuable real estate in the world, which the conspirators, it appears, wanted to preclude by employing a novel mode of demolition.
Enthusiastic Endorsements
The widespread acceptance of nanothermite as the crucial component of the demolition of the Twin Towers has become a matter of common knowledge within the 9/11 Truth community. But here are samples of the extent to which it has become embedded in reasoning about 9/11. On April 5, 2009, for example, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth published “Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust”, presenting its ringing endorsement of its findings:
“A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive.
“The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan, some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed, ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations. . . .
“Ordinary thermite burns quickly and can melt through steel, but it is not explosive. Nanothermite, however, can be formulated as a high explosive. It is stable when wet and can be applied like paint.”
During an interview in RUSSIA TODAY (July 2009), Neils Harrit, the paper’s first author, offers observations that are rather more qualified by suggesting that, while thermite was “used for melting the steel beams”, he is certain that conventional explosives were also used:
“There is very solid evidence for that some thermite has been used for melting the steel beams. We should not, I do not know, we do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very very possible that different varieties was used and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too in abundance.” When asked what he meant by the phrase,“in abundance,” he said “tons, hundred tons, many many many tons.”
In his admirable “Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?”, GLOBAL RESEARCH (6 July 2010), David Ray Griffin, the dean of 9/11 research, expressed his emphatic support for nanothermite as a powerful explosive capable of exerting enormous force and ejecting large sections of steel hundreds of feet:
“NIST thereby admitted that debris had been thrown out horizontally from the North Tower at least 350 feet.84 NIST’s report also stated:
“When WTC 1 collapsed at 10:28:22 AM, . . . some fragments [of debris] were forcibly ejected and traveled distances up to hundreds of meters. Pieces of WTC 1 hit WTC 7, severing six columns on Floors 7 through 17 on the south face and one column on the west face near the southwest corner. The debris also caused structural damage between Floor 44 and the roof.85
“Debris that caused such extensive damage, including the severing of seven steel columns, had to be quite heavy. NIST seemed to be granting, therefore, that sections of steel columns had been hurled at least 650 feet (because “hundreds of meters” would mean at least 200 meters, which would be about 650 feet). Enormous force would be needed to eject large sections of steel that far out.
“What could have produced this force? According to NIST, as we saw earlier, there were only three causal factors in the collapse of the Twin Towers: the airplane impacts, the fires, and gravitational attraction. The airplane impacts had occurred 56 minutes (South Tower) and 102 minutes (North Tower) earlier, and gravitational attraction pulls things straight downward. Fire could, to be sure, produce horizontal ejections by causing jet fuel to explode, but the jet fuel had, NIST pointed out, burned up within “a few minutes.”86 Therefore, although NIST admitted that these horizontal ejections occurred, it suggested no energy source to explain them.
“High explosives, such as RDX or nanothermite, could explain these horizontal ejections. According to NIST, however, explosives did not contribute to the destruction of the Twin Towers. Those who accept NIST’s account must, therefore, regard these horizontal ejections as constituting yet another miracle.”
And there can be scant room for doubt that Griffin’s characterization has become the dominant view within the 9/11 Truth community, where it has assumed a standing akin to that of a religious dogma, where those who challenge that belief have been subject to severe reactions from within the community, including forms of banishment and blackballing, very much on the order of heretics in theological disputes of the past, many of whom were even burned at the stake.
The Split in Scholars
And I have been among them. When I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I invited Steven Jones, a physicist from BYU, to serve as my co-chair, on the advice of David Ray Griffin, whom I invited first. I would later learn from David that, at that time, he had no confidence that a society could make a difference, which was an opinion he would later retract. In the months between founding the society in December of 2005 and the American Scholars Conference in Los Angeles in June of 2006, I had heard a lot about thermite, thermate, and nanothermite, but was skeptical that it could perform the feats of blowing massive assemblies of steel hundreds of yards and converting two 500,000 ton buildings into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. On Saturday of the conference, I approached Steve in the lobby and asked him if he was confident that nanothermite could bring about these effects—and was not entirely persuaded when he assured me that, “Yes, it could!”
By the end of the year, I had become convinced that it was necessary to broaden the range of hypotheses that were under consideration as candidates to explain the destruction of the Twin Towers. None of us had any problems with WTC-7, which exhibited all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition: the explosion began at the base, ran up the side of the building with a kink in the roof, where all the floors fell at the same time into the buildings foundation at the approximate rate of free fall and a stack of debris about 12% of its original height remained. The Twin Towers were different, where all of their floors remained stationary until they were “blown to kingdom come” (in the memorable phrase of Morgan Reynolds), where they were destroyed at the approximate rate of free fall, too, but where, as Fr. Frank Morales from St. Mark’s Episcopal Church observed during two interviews on a radio program I co-hosted with Kevin Barrett, “The Dynamic Duo”, both buildings, unlike WTC-7, were destroyed below ground level!
The differences between us were exacerbated when I interviewed Dr. Judy Wood, a former professor of mechanical engineering, who was promoting the alternative theory that directed energy weapons might have been used to destroy the buildings rather than thermite in any of its guises, which took place on November 11, 2006. What I liked the most about Judy’s work was that it offered a fresh perspective about how it could have been done, where she asked me to guess where a directed energy device could have been located and, when I offered WTC-7 as a guess, she corrected me and said, “In space!” I would bet that this interview caused more division in the 9/11 Truth community than any other event before or after. Judy began being attacked for advocating “space beams” and “death rays”, while I was castigated for supporting her. That I was SUPPORTING RESEARCH on her theory as opposed to ENDORSING IT was a subtlety that was lost on the crowd, where it has become part of the presumptive history of the 9/11 movement.
Critique of Steven Jones
Perhaps my strongest critique of Steve’s work occurred by accident. On May 17, 2007, my scheduled guest on “The Dynamic Duo”, Don Paul, was a no-show and I had to wing it for two hours. So for the first part of the show, I talked about my collaborative research on the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone and on the assassination of JFK. During the second part, however, I focused my attention on a new paper he had just published, “Why indeed did the World Trade Center buildings completely collapse?” A copy can be found on the Journal of 9/11 Studies 3 (2006), which I suppose is a close facsimile of the paper I discussed, although Steve has sometimes revised his work on-line without formal notice. In my critique, I pointed out that the title was wrong, since the buildings had not “collapsed” and that he was talking about the Twin Towers, but my more serious criticisms concerned his deeply flawed conception of the scientific method and what I regarded as inadequate support for his thermite/thermate/nanothermite theory, “On the Manipulation of the 9/11 Research Community”. Here are a few passages for the flavor:
“Don’t forget that eleven hundred bodies were never recovered. Eleven hundred bodies were never recovered. Those were bodies that were turned into very fine dust. Never recovered. That’s completely inconsistent with a “collapse”. Even involving explosive, you would expect to find body parts, even if they were detached from bodies. And you’d find lots of skulls and torsos and arms and legs, but here we’re talking eleven hundred bodies, no parts of which were recovered. This is stunning stuff. And it certainly implies that something was going on here far beyond the use of any merely conventional explosives.
“But what’s going on in the research community is an attempt to constrain research that would actually have the capacity potentially to explain what’s going on. By reaching beyond conventional weaponry in to the range of unconventional weaponry, such as lasers, masers, plasmoids, mini-nukes. I mean, who knows in advance of actually conducting an investigation that theories or hypotheses about the use of lasers or masers or mini-nukes are wrong? You can’t know that without investigation. And I’m going to suggest that a gigantic hoax is being perpetrated on the research community by the claim that [the] scientific method supports this very narrow definition of the use of thermite and thermate . . . .
“. . . where I have now taken a look at the latest paper of the leading proponent of that view, Steven Jones, and it doesn’t add up. I mean it may be impressive to those who are naïve about the nature of science and who are incapable of reading a paper that has the least degree of technical sophistication to it, but I’m going to suggest to you as we go through this paper that what we have here is a rather elaborate “snow job”, where the most important points made are actually concessions that the evidence he has found is merely consistent with the use of thermite or thermate but doesn’t prove it was produced by thermite or thermate, where, provided that there are multiple alternative possible explanations, he has not done the job. And I’m going to claim that he has not done the job because he has a commitment to a conception of scientific method that is hopelessly inadequate. Hopelessly inadequate. And that while he talks a lot about science, he is, alas, not practicing it.”
Jones’ maintains that the scientific method is a process of observation, formulating an hypothesis, performing tests and experiments, and then publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal. That’s wrong, because science cannot simply begin with observation (since there is too much we could observe) and it cannot proceed by studying one hypothesis at a time. Science is a process of puzzlement (because something doesn’t fit into your background knowledge), speculation (by identifying the alternative hypotheses that might explain the data), adaptation (of hypotheses to data by calculating and comparing their likelihoods), and explanation (by accepting the hypothesis with the highest likelihood when the evidence has “settled down”, in the tentative and fallible fashion of science). His inadequate methodology derives from the failure to grasp that scientific research requires the comparison of alternative hypotheses and cannot focus only on one.
“Houston, we have a problem!”
The most glaring empirical failure of the then-current version of his paper is that he finally gets around to talking about barium nitrate, and by the time you reach the final page, he has acknowledged that what he is talking about is not actually thermite but what he calls a “thermite analog”, which he does not actually define, and he admits that thermite, which he now calls “TH3”, is an analog of thermite that contains sulfur and barium nitrate and now he talks about thermite “as defined here”. It turns out this barium-nitrate-containing thermite is the military grade thermite that he has been using to demonstrate the effectiveness of thermite, illustrated by the use of a thermite grenade on the top of an engine block. But no barium nitrate has been found in the analysis of the chemical residue in the analysis of the dust by Steven Jones or by the US Geological Survey. So in this version, he has pulled a bait-and-switch. Looking at the current version on-line, however, barium nitrate is mentioned on page 19 but not at the end of his paper, which means that it has been revised since I critiqued it.
I am not the only one to have evaluated that version of his paper in caustic, negative terms, since a complementary critique comes from Stephen Phillips, “A Physicist Critiques Steven Jones’ New Paper” (May 21, 2007), where the present version is clearly not the same as the one he and I were addressing—a reflection of which may be that he actually includes my name in the acknowledgements! So let’s look at the conclusion of the current version and consider what he says there:
“Remarkably, the controlled-demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns (and corner perimeter columns) on floors damaged by the planes are cut near-simultaneously using radio-signaled explosives/incendiary-cutters. In this scenario, cutter-charges were set every two or three floors during routine “maintenance” of elevator shafts, etc., so that the cutting sequence could be matched in a controlling computer to begin at the level where the plane entered each Tower. Next cutter-charges were detonated from the top downward for the Towers, ejecting beams and material long distances horizontally as observed during the destruction. The “collapses” are thus near-symmetrical, complete, at near-free-fall speeds with accompanying “squibs”. Thermite analogs (whose end product is molten iron) including the explosive form, nano-thermite, may account for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles as well as the sulfidation observed in steel from both the WTC 7 and Towers rubble piles (points 1 and 2 above). WTC 7 evidently proceeded in a more conventional fashion for controlled demolition, with collapse-initiating explosions starting on lower floors (rather than at high-floor levels as for the Towers).”
Notice that, like Architects & Engineers and David Ray Griffin, Steve is attributing vast powers to thermite in its “explosive” nanothermite form, including the capacity to eject steel beams and materials long distances horizontally “as observed during the destruction”. He appeals to “thermite analogs” whose end product is molten iron—“including the explosive form, nanothermite”—may account for the molten metal that pooled beneath the rubble piles, where WTC-7, he acknowledges, “evidently proceeded in a more conventional fashion for controlled demolition”, beginning on the lower floors rather than from the top. This is well and good and moves in the right direction. But can even these claims for nanothermite be sustained? It appears that they cannot.
Nanothermite: A Feeble Explosive
I has been my great pleasure over the past twelve months or more to participate in a research group focusing on the properties of thermite in all its original, thermate and nanothemite forms. We were aided and abetted in this process by contributions from Daniel Fairchild, a Vietnam veteran experienced in dealing with explosives, who was my guest on “The Real Deal” on
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
, an interview that stimulated our thinking about how explosives work and how they might have been employed on 9/11. While some of his numbers struck us as faulty, Dan’s work motivated T. Mark Hightower, an engineer who has worked in the chemical industry and the space program—including with NASA for 21 years—to undertake a search of the open technical literature on nanothermite to determine its explosive potential in comparison to other explosives.
What Mark discovered was surprising, especially given the extent to which leading figures of the 9/11 Truth movement have promoted it. The highest degree of explosiveness for iron oxide/aluminum nanothermite—the chemical form claimed to have been involved in WTC destruction—that Mark could find documented in the technical literature has a detonation velocity of only 895 m/s (or meters per second). Since TNT, the universal standard for comparison, has a detonation velocity of 6,900 m/s, the explosive potential of thermite in its most potent form of nanothermite is acutely disappointing. When we divide the velocity of nanothermite by that for TNT (895/6,900), it turns out nanothermite is not even 13% as powerful as TNT. (See “Table of Explosive Velocities” from Wikipedia.)
As Mark has explained in a blog, “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”, and an interview on “The Real Deal”
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
, 895 m/s is obviously too low of a value to account for the explosive effects observed in the catastrophic destruction of the WTC Twin Towers, including turning concrete and other materials into dust or separating and propelling steel members and other materials outward. Comparisons with the detonation velocities of conventional high explosives, such as 8,750 m/s for RDX or 9,100 m/x for HMX (not to mention 8,040 m/s for C-4 and 8,400 m/s for PETN), it is clear that nanothermite is not even in the same ballpark. While thermite in one or another of its guises as a rapid incendiary could have been used to sever or pre-weaken steel members, this low velocity melting process is a totally different mechanism for the cutting of steel than the shock wave method that requires detonation velocities of at least 3,200 m/s for concrete and 6,100 m/s for steel.
With respect to the demolition of the Twin Towers and blowing them to bits, low-explosive nanothermite, which does exist, can be eliminated as an hypothesis because it is ineffective. High-explosive nanothermite as an alternative can be eliminated because it simply does not exist. Mark therefore concludes that the phrase, “explosive nanothermite”, when used to describe the causal mechanism for demolishing the Twin Towers is either seriously misleading under a charitable interpretation and at worst deliberately deceptive under an uncharitable one. Either way, conventional or unconventional explosives would have had to be combined with thermite, even in its nanothermite form. And if such a blend had been employed, the nanothermite would function more as an additive to high explosives rather than as the main ingredient itself.
The Nanothermite Challenge
On May 1, 2011, Hightower published, “The Nanothermite Challenge”, as part of a longer study, “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”. The challenge comes to this:
“Find and document peer-reviewed scientific research [publications] that demonstrate that a gas-generating nanothermite (GGNT) based upon iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3) and aluminum (Al), where the gas-generating chemical added to the nanothermite is not itself a high explosive, can be made to be a high explosive with at least a detonation velocity of 2000 m/s. The author of this paper will donate [to AE911Truth] $100 for every 1000 m/s of detonation velocity that can be documented, the donation not to exceed $1,000.”
The deadline date of June 20, 2011 passed with not even one entry to this contest. Interestingly, Kevin Ryan posted an article at 911blogger that very day entitled “The explosive nature of nanothermite”. In this article, Ryan admits that they know very little about the role that nanothermite played in 9/11.
“Although we know that nanothermite has been found in the WTC dust, we do not know what purpose it served in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It could be that the nanothermite was used simply to drive fires in the impact zones and elevator areas – fires which would otherwise have gone out too early or not been present at all – and thereby create the deception that jet fuel-induced fires could wreak the havoc seen. Nanothermite might also have been used to produce the explosions necessary to destroy the structural integrity of the buildings.”
In Ryan’s paper he cites (what he claims to be) “ten references to the fact that nanothermites can be made to be explosive.” During my interview with Mark Hightower of
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
, on “The Real Deal”, however, Mark refuted every one of Ryan’s ten references. Let me document just one especially interesting example of those refutations here. Ryan’s reference 4 states,
“A high explosive creates a shockwave that always travels at high, supersonic velocity from the point of origin. This paper describes how – ‘the reaction of the low density nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3.’”
All you need to do is go to the title of this paper to see that it is not relevant to the nanothermite hypothesis advanced by Jones, Ryan, Griffin and Harrit, among others, because it is for the wrong chemical form of thermite. The Twin Towers destruction allegedly involved the use of iron oxide/aluminum nanothermite, but in this paper, “Generation of fast propagating combustion and shock waves with copper oxide/aluminum nanothermite composities”, Applied Physics Letters (2007), we have copper oxide/aluminum nanothermite. Although not the main thrust of the paper, it gives a qualified reference to iron oxide/aluminum nanothermite research. It says,
“Recently, we reported that higher combustion wave speeds were achieved for the composites of ordered porous Fe2O3 oxidizer and Al nanoparticles (5) as compared with the one containing porous oxidizer with no ordering of the pores and Al nanoparticles.”
Unfortunately no velocities are given, so it was necessary to go to the reference (5) cited in this paper to find more data, which Mark has done. The information for the reference (5) paper is as follows: Mehendale, Bhushan , Shende, Rajesh , Subramanian, Senthil , Gangopadhyay, Shubhra , Redner, Paul , Kapoor, Deepak and Nicolich, Steven(2006) ‘Nanoenergetic Composite of Mesoporous Iron Oxide and Aluminum Nanoparticles’, Journal of Energetic Materials, 24: 4, 341 — 360
On page 357, there is a graph, where the highest velocities (referred to as “burn rates” on the graph) are reported for the specified iron oxide/aluminum nanothermites. Those velocities are all less than 300 m/s, which is even less than the 895 m/s that Mark Hightower has established for iron/oxide aluminum nanothermite. It is safe to say that nothing revealed by Kevin Ryan provides an adequate response to “the nanothermite challenge”.
Replies from Researchers
In retrospect, it should have been obvious that nanothermite could not live up to its capabilities as they have been advanced by Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others, who regard themselves as the custodians and only true practitioners of the scientific method in 9/11 research. Thus, Denis Spitzer et al., “Energetic nano-materials: Opportunities for enhanced performances”, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids (2010), where, given the crucial role of the rapid expansion of gases to perform work by explosives, states, “Gas generating nano-thermites: Thermites are energetic materials, which do not release gaseous species when they decompose. However, explosives can be blended in thermites to give them blasting properties”, which implies that, unless supplemented with explosives, nanothermites are not explosive.
In his efforts to inform prominent researchers about his discoveries, Mark wrote to Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and others. Dwain Deets, the former Chief of Research Engineering and Director for Aeronautical Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, wrote to Mark and told him that he had listened to our interview on “The Real Deal” and said: “Excellent interview. A step toward trimming back claims that overshoot the evidence.” He also sent a diagram illustrating certain detonation velocities as well as the sonic (speed of sound) velocities in various materials. Thus, for a high explosive to significantly fragment a material, its detonation velocity has to be greater than the speed of sound in that material, which requires a detonation velocity of at least 3,200 m/s to fragment concrete and 6,100 m/s to fragment steel–far beyond 895 m/s for nanothermite.
On July 7, 2011, Hightower received emails from both David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage. Gage wrote back that “it [nanothermite] should not be called a ‘high’ explosive”. Griffin made a similar suggestion and, in reply, Mark observed that calling it simply “an explosive” would convey to most members of the public that it is “a high explosive” or, given it’s invocation by the “hard evidence” crowd, at least, has the ability to disintegrate concrete and even steel. Since that is the impression that has been indelibly implanted in the consciousness of the public, within and without the 9/11 Truth movement, until that claim is corrected, the 9/11 Truth movement will be based upon a provably false theory.
Griffin himself, of course, is not a scientist and is relying upon the work of Jones, Ryan, and others. But when he wrote back, “We are happy with our formulation, that it can be tailored to work as an incendiary or [as] an explosive. We cannot be responsible for the fact that many people may equate ‘explosive’ with ‘high explosive’”, his answer raised a number of rather disturbing questions about the ethical implications of allowing these enormously misleading impressions to linger:
(1) Will Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth inform the public that it has misrepresented the potential for “explosive nanothermite”?; and,
(2) If nanothermite only exists as a low explosive, that it cannot “hold the key” to the destruction of the Twin Towers, as has been claimed?; and,
(3) Will A&E admit that nanothermite cannot possibly be the “smoking gun” of 9/11 research, when the hard evidence contradicts that claim?
The 9/11 Truth Dilemma
Once again, as in the case of the Pentagon crash site and the question of “planes/no planes”, serious students of 9/11 are placed in a dilemma. If they are committed to truth, as the name “9/11 Truth” implies, then they have to confront the fact that claims advanced on behalf the nanothermite hypothesis—that the scientific key to understanding the demolition of the Twin Towers is the use of the nano-version of thermite—cannot be sustained. When the detonation velocity of nanothermite is only 895 m/s, while TNT has a detonation velocity of 6,900 m/s, the explosive potential of thermite—even in its most potent form as nanothermite—is more than acutely disappointing. When it turns out nanothermite is not even 13% as powerful as TNT, the very idea that nanothermite should “hold the scientific key to understanding what happened to the Twin Towers” is simply absurd.
But shouldn’t the leaders of a self-proclaimed 9/11 “scientific research” group have sorted this out before they proclaimed that nanothermite was “the key”? As Mark has observed in his study, Steve Jones made a mistake early in his 9/11 research career by classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category with RDX, HMX, and others, whose detonation velocities are overwhelmingly greater. Alas, “The 9/11 truth movement has never recovered from from this error, for to this day nearly everyone in the 9/11 movement refers to ‘explosive nanothermite’, as even this clever cover for a fictitious ‘For Dummies’ book [above] illustrates.” And shouldn’t those who were promoting it to the community have discovered their blunder and taken steps to correct the false impression that they were thereby conveying?
My critique of Steve Jones’ research, “On the manipulation of the 9/11 Truth Community”, in which I observed, for example, that “the most important points [he has] made are actually concessions that the evidence he has found is merely consistent with the use of thermite or thermate but doesn’t prove it was produced by thermite or thermate, where, provided that there are multiple alternative possible explanations, he has not done the job. And I’m going to claim that he has not done the job because he has a commitment to a conception of scientific method that is hopelessly inadequate. . . . And that while he talks a lot about science, he is, alas, not practicing it”, was presented on the air on on May 17, 2007. It was even published on 911blogger, but met with derision and hostility, where the comments were extremely revealing.
And there were other signs of trouble brewing. The Rock Creek Free Press (May 2009), for example, published a piece about nanothermite, which offered a more reasonable assessment of its explosive capabilities, explaining that even if it has the potential to be a low grade explosive, its use as a high explosive—which might be capable of doing the work required to bring about (at least a major part of) the destruction of the Twin Towers—would require that it be combined with a high explosive. Surely this front-page article, which featured photos of Neils Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Kevin Ryan, and Steve Jones, ought to have caught the attention of the leaders of the “hard-evidence” research group.
Even now, after the publication of “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”, some of its most important advocates, such as Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and Neils Harrit, remain its obdurate supporters. There are signs that others may be more appreciative of the significance of these considerations, where recent handouts from Architechts & Engineers for 9/11 Truth advance the slightly more modest claim, “WTC dust samples contain chips of highly energetic nano-thermite composite materials – uniformly nano-sized, proportioned in an organic gas-generating (explosive) matrix”, which appears to be the fallback position: nanothermite may not be explosive, but it can be combined with explosives to make it explosive. The same, alas, can also be said of toothpaste. At some point, therefore, these “leaders” of the 9/11 Truth movement have to concede that a mistake was made and that they have misled the movement: nanothermite cannot possibly hold the key to understanding the demolition of the Twin Towers on 9/11.
James H. Fetzer is a former Marine Corps officer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and a columnist for VT.
T. Mark Hightower has worked as an engineer for nearly 30 years, initially in the chemical industry, then in the space program for NASA, and currently in the environmental field, also with NASA. He is a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). His research on 9/11 is an exercise of his Constitutional rights as a private citizen and in no way represents his employer or any of the professional societies of which he is a member.
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=121632
Posted by Jim Fetzer on Jul 17 2011, With 0 Reads, Filed under Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
Jim, thanks for the post. It definitely needs more than one read. As an engineer, physicist and mathematician myself, I tend to ignore wild, emotional theories and focus on facts, trying to connect the dots logically. As far as 9/11 goes, I witnessed what I witnessed in relative real-time. In an upcoming post on VT’s partner journal, http://www.veteransnewsnow.com, I will address the latest dots I’ve uncovered in this seemingly endless endeavor.
I hope you two (Fetzer and Hightower) don’t mind if I peruse and maybe use some of your reasoning. And thank you for your service.
Tom First Cav Vet
Absolutely, Tom. And I have asked Mark to monitor the comments for questions he is better positioned to address than I am. And I will be interested to read your latest in veteransnewsnow.com when it appears.
I am a contributor to this article, and I just found an error, that hopefully Jim Fetzer can fix. Where it says “On page 357, there is a graph, where the highest velocities (referred to as “burn rates” on the graph) are reported for the specified copper oxide/aluminum nanothermites.” the word “copper” needs to be changed to “iron.” My scribd web page where a lot of the relevant files of my work can be found is
http://www.scribd.com/tmhightower
I see that Jim has fixed the error. Thank you Jim.
What Mark means was “copper” in lieu of “iron” in the first mention of “iron/oxide aluminim nanothermite” here:
On page 357, there is a graph, where the highest velocities (referred to as “burn rates” on the graph) are reported for the specified iron oxide/aluminum nanothermites. Those velocities are all less than 300 m/s, which is even less than the 895 m/s that Mark Hightower has established for iron/oxide aluminum nanothermite. It is safe to say that nothing revealed by Kevin Ryan provides an adequate response to “the nanothermite challenge”.
I have wondered why there were so many reports of sections of the steel being radioactive, and that that was the reason china wouldn’t take it. Chris bollyn’s book talks about the destruction of the steel, and the answer is (or was), without a doubt, in the steel. I think the answer is that thermite was used to cut the major structural members, and some form of HE was used to pulverize the floors and basements. obviously one should always seek out the truth, and if geraldo is talking about nano-thermite as the sole component, maybe we should be open to new theories. But it’s ALMOST a waste of time to get into the minutiae of the tactical, when we know who the culprits are… Any and all dual Israelis are suspects, and are at least complicit and traitors by default.
My view has long been that the thermite/thermate/nanothermite theory represented (what is known as) a degenerating research paradigm: it was not spawning any new hypotheses, new research, or new ideas. It seemed to me to be a dead end. Now we know the reason why. And having emancipated ourselves from a false theory, we can explore how it was really done. Nanothermite may have played a role here, but it was secondary to the principal source(s) of massive energy required to blow the towers apart and to convert most of the concrete and steel into very fine dust, which was crucial to make sure that no substantial part of those buildings shattered the bathtub and allowed the Hudson River to flood beneath lower Manhattan, the subway and PATH train tunnels, which would have been an additional catastrophe! These thoughtful “terrorists” made sure that didn’t happen! That was considerate of them!
This is a great article and brings to light many issues that need to be explored if we are ever to get to the bottom of 911. The effort to unravel it has very much taken the same trajectory as was followed when researchers attempted to unlock the truth about the JFK assassination. Looking back, I realize we were all initially blinded to the truth by reefusing to believe that the US govt could actually have been involved in that assassination that was actually a coup (some still can’t believe it).
I have previously commented on several of the points you raised regarding whether planes struck the the towers. Now I quite agree with your point that if the videos are real, then planes necessarily hit the buildings. I also agree with the portion of your comment that if the videos are fake, then planes may or may not have hit the building. The part I disagree with is your inclination to believe planes did not hit the building and that it was all vidoe fakery.
Well, as I have said before, I was at the corner of Broadway and Rector streets when the plane hit the South Tower. I saw it straight on. There is not the slightest doubt a plane hit that building. It was a rather large plane. I could, however, never identify the type of plane that was involved since it happened far too quickly. Now, unless and until someone proves to me that it is possible to project a fake scene in real time that numerous people can see simultaneously from different locations, the claim that no plane hit holds no water.
There are, however, many good reasons why video fakery was used even if real planes hit. To note just some. First, if the planes that hit were not the airline flights that have been identified, the planners could not allow real videos to be broadcast that could be used to identify the aircraft involved that could to a certainty preclude the planes being the ones that took off as the designated flights. Since it’s almost a certainty that aircraft substitutions occurred and that the planes that crashed differed from the planes that took off as the airline flights, this possibilty had to be excluded. Fake videos would do that.
SEcond, the planners had to be sure that sufficiently graphic videos were available that would sufficiently shock the public about what happened. They could never have been certain that even if TV crews were present, they would capture just the right shot. Here again video fakery is essential
for creating the right effect. Doing this would have required hat fake feeds be spliced intothe broadcasts of the actual live takes, which really isn’t all that hard to do.
Third, the fact the debris found does not match the uniquely serially numbered parts of the designated aircraft does not prove that no planes hit the buiding. It only proves to a certainty it wasn’t the airliners that were supposedly involved.
The other key part of your account is how the buildings were demolished that I have also commented on before. Now I quite agree that we can never get to the bottom of 911 unless we remain open to all possibities about what methods could have been used to do it rather than fixating on specific, known methods or techniques that clearly appear to be inadequte.
Without going too much into it, the explosive forces involved that turned the building of concrete, steel, glass, and marble into fine dust and that made over 1,000 bodies disappear makes it obvious it is impossible that it was just ordinary explosive. It may not even have been mini-nukes. The key, however, is that the more extraordinary the explosive that was used, the more essential that a common alternative be employed at the same time to disguise it, or at least to give a plausible explanation that keeps the public from delving deeper into what actually happend. Otherwise, people would be forced to look for the uncommon method that had to be used if no common alterntaive appeared. That’s where the use of nanothermite comes in. Once people become convinced that explains it, they won’t look further for what else may have been involved that would prove beyond question it was impossible for the Arabs to have done it. It’s for the same reaason they had to crash planes intothe buildings to provide anobvious “explanation” for why they collapsed. If the buildings had simply been blown up, no one would believe the Arabs did it.
So I am convinced it is necessary to look far and wide and leave nothing out until, as Conan Doyle put it, we eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains is the truth.
Prien
Prien, I like this post, which is far more reasonable than many others that have appeared here. The plane seen in the videos cannot be real, no matter how many may have seen what they took to be a real plane: it entered the building in violation of Newton’s laws. No real plane could do that. And it passed through its own length into this massive steel and concrete structure in the same number of frames that it passed through its own length in air. No real plane could do that.
As I have explained, they had to resort to video fakery because (1) it turns out to be very difficult to hit a 208′ edifice with an airplane flying at high speed; (2) they needed to get the plane INTO THE BUILDING before it “exploded” to have a semi-plausible explanation for its “collapse”; and, (3) they needed to time it to coincide with the explosions in the subbasements to provide a cover story for their occurrence: jet fuel fell through the elevator shafts and exploded in the basements!
I have explained that the elevators were off-set every 30 floors, so that won’t do. While there are two per building that run top-to-bottom, one of Willie’s co-custodians was in one of them and would have been dry roasted if it had happened that way, but he survived. And, as Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross have shown, the alleged “plane impacts” occurred 14 and 17 seconds AFTER the explosions in the subbasements. (See their study, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job”.)
Since no real plane could perform the feats shown on the video, we know whatever you saw cannot have been a real plane. But it most certainly can have been the IMAGE of a real plane, which could be projected to fly faster than a real 767, enter a building in violation of Newton’s laws, and pass though its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. What you saw appears to have been a sophisticated hologram.
You might want to check out the latest in hologram technology. We have famous persons who deliver lectures to audiences in a completely convincing fashion, yet turn out to have been images using holographic projection. So it appears to be technically feasible. And, as John Lear has also observed, the plane in the videos has no strobe lights. That is a relatively minor point, but it is also telling. You were viewing a hologram. No other hypothesis can explain all of the data.
Your response now indicates we can have a reasonable conversation about the issues that I raised. (BTW, I also noted your more cordial rejoinder to objections about my JFK credentials and related matters. You’re right, you have never met me and undoubtedly don’t know about me since my screen name is not my name. I have actually been engaged in researching and studying the JFK assassination for more than twice as long as your twenty years – 48 to be exact. I can also assure you that it was vastly more difficult to challenge the Warren Commission findings in 1964 than it was in the 1990′s. The report itself thoroughly discredited itself in its summary of the evidence proving Oswald’s guilt that entirely omitted the crucial link that tied the bullet that was linked to the Carcano rifle Oswald allegedly bought (without any real evidence for even this) to any human wound, much less either Kennedy’s or Connally’s injuries. Without this key fact that was necessary to support an inference of Oswald’s guilt based on circumstantial evidence, the Commission’s case against him collapses beyond redemption. The same principles apply to the case at hand.)
First, I agree for the video(s) must be fake (although for clarity it would be necessary to identify
each one) for the technical reasons you cite about the crash image they depict. Although I agree they resorted to video fakery for the 2nd and 3rd number reason you give, video fakery was not essential for accomplishing those purposes. Videos of the actual crashes would do just as well. I instead posted different reason why they dared not rely on actual videos of the crashes and why they were impelled to use fake ones to cover up what actually happened. I, however, disagree with your first reason that they resorted to fakery because they found it difficult to hit a building at high speeds. Difficult is not, however, IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PROOF YOU NEED they resorted to fakery, or more important, as your proof that the crashes themselves were faked.
Fakery was, to be sure, involved, but to get a handle on 911, it is necessary to be clear about to what end, how it was used, and what it reveals about the events themselves.
The basic foundation for the govt explanation for 911 is the false cause fallacy of “post hoc, ergo, property hoc” proof of what brought the towers done. They collapsed after the planes ht them, so obviously the crashes caused the collapse. What else could have done it? The graphic videos repeated thousands of times with the apparently massive explosions settled it. It was next to impossible to question in for a long time afterwards. I know, because I ran into countless times in Union Square.
But this false cause explanation also obviously needed a validating foundation, which the crashes provided. And if the crashes were the necessary validating foundation for the false cause explanation, the crashes were then necessarily an integral element of the false cause explanation, and thus had to be separate elements of the same plan.
The key role that the finding of nano-thermite played was to provide definite, scientific proof that
utterly refuted the govts false cause explanation for how the towers collapsed.. The refutation
then also exposed the crashes as a false validating foundation for the event itself. Since the false validating foundation for the false cause explanation had to part of the plan for implementing both events, exposing both to be false at the same tie established that the entire plan and its implementation were intentional made to appear to be something they were not. In other words, they were a fraud on the public. And when that’s the game being played, it’s all in my arena.
Once you climb into this area, the basic rule to follow is that nothing can be taken at face value, especially for an event like 911 when the perpetrators will operate on multiple levels to make the events appear as other than they were.
When one dives into this realm, you are through the looking glass that makes it especially critical to go no further than firmly established evidence allows.
Which brings me back to the hypothesis, and it’s only a hypothesis, of the false airplane crashes that the false videos of the crashes appear to validate.
So let’s be clear about this. The fact that the videos of the crashes are false, does not in and of
itself prove the crashes did not happen. The crashes, and the videos of those events are separate and independent events. The appearance of one proves nothing about the other except and unless the video is taken contemporaneously with and directly depicts the event that is external to it. Once this link is broken between them, nothing about one says anything about the other except that as independent events, both can be false or one can be false while the other is still true.
The argument that the crashes did not occur is essentially founded on nothing more than that
because the videos of the crashes are false, and the crashes could not have happened, either.
To prove the crashes did not happen, you assume the burden of refuting the visual evidence of
witnesses along with presenting evidence proving the availability and use of technology that
projected the visual and auditory experiences of those witnesses.
You referred me to hologram technology that could have been used to accomplish this. I did a
brief review of available systems, and all the ones I reviewed required some kind of screen on
which the image is projected. Since no such screen was visible anywhere above lower Manhattan, I cannot buy this as any kind of credible evidence proving the crashes themselves were faked.
That why, as far as I am concerned, without real proof of both the feasibility and use of
technology for projecting such visions in the sky, planes crashed into the buildings. Arguing
otherwise projects a false lense onto the multiple layers of falsehoods the perpetrators used to
hide the truth about 911 from the public.
Prien
About JFK, the Mannlicher-Carcano, which appears to have been a plant, cannot have been the instrument of his death since, according to his death certificates, THE WARREN REPORT (1964), and even articles that would subsequently appear in JAMA (Journal of the AMA), the bullets that killed him were high-velocity, but the carbine was not. Therefore, the only weapon that Lee was alleged to have used cannot have fired the bullets that killed him. Plus he was on the second floor instead of the sixth, where he was observed in and around the lunchroom by his co-workers. And Marina would later report that he admired JFK and bore him no malice, so the man the Warren Commission fingered for the crime had neither the means, the motive, or the opportunity to kill him. I am sure you are aware of all of this, but others who want more can download my “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?” as a pdf.
Moreover, it was the realization that you could have BOTH video fakery AND real planes–if, for example, there were properties of the planes or of their interaction with the buildings that they had to conceal–that allowed me to open my mind to the possibility of video fakery. You can find a number of documentaries that focus on the possible use of some kind of plane other than a standard Boeing 767 at the South Tower, such as “In Plane Site”, which focused on a feature on the bottom of the fuselage that is non-standard but appears to be the pod for an override system that can take control of a plane if it were subject to a hijacking or from some other reason, such as the loss of consciousness or even death of the pilots. Given that feature, which Boeing officials acknowledged they were aware of but were unwilling to discuss, we have another indication of government complicity if the plane had been real, since it was NOT used to take control away from the alleged hijackers. But no real plane could perform the feats accomplished by this one.
There is no evidence of a real plane. The witness reports, in fact, are the strongest reason to believe that this was probably the use of a sophisticated holographic projection. John Lear, perhaps our nation’s most distinguished pilot, and Steffan Grossman, who has an extended study of the collision physics of Flight 175 with the South Tower, both endorse the hologram hypothesis; and others have reported extraordinary experiences with holographic projections, including those of auditoriums full of observers as a man walks to the lectern and delivers his presentation with complete authority and authenticity, only to be exposed as a hologram thereafter to the astonishment of the audience. Since it cannot have been a real plane, but it looked to witnesses as if it were, I think we have no real alternative but to conclude that it was something that looked like a real plane but was not a real plane, which implies a hologram. I discuss this in “Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity” as one of many indications that the events of 9/11 were faked and staged.
I do not mean to imply thereby that real people were not really killed on 9/11. Indeed, the most difficult obstacle to overcome is the psychological resistance to the very idea that a government that is supposed to support us and promote our welfare should instead be involved in perpetrating these events to instill fear into the American people to make us more vulnerable to manipulation for its own political purposes. Since that is the classic definition of terrorism in relation to a target population, the Bush administration was practicing terrorism on the American people. I do agree, however, that the discovery of these chips, which I also agree do appear to be residues of nanothermite, tells us something is wrong. If the “hard evidence” crowd had not grossly exaggerated their claims about its capabilities, we would not have had to explain that it cannot destroy concrete or steel and therefore does not by itself have the kinds of properties required to destroy the Twin Towers. But I think we would both agree that its presence still has probative value. The problem is that the claims made on its behalf are not true. A “9/11 Truth” movement cannot be based on a false theory.
A lot of interesting information. However, from the article: These are questions that can be investigated using scientific reasoning to evaluate alternative hypotheses.
This is one of the issues I have with some members of the 911 truth movement. Some 911 investigators ignore the evidence such as the numerous eyewitnesses that saw the airplane at the Pentagon. Many saw it flying extremely low, hitting poles. Many saw it smack the Pentagon. There are photographs of the wreckage. However, we’ve been told according to logic it’s impossible for a 757 to make the maneuvers reported by the air traffic controllers and therefore it was hit by a missile. Well, NONE OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS SAW THE PLANE FLY AWAY FROM THE PENTAGON. NOBODY SAW A MISSILE AT THE PENTAGON. I suppose in the future only scientists will be allowed to be witnesses in courtrooms.
I’m told all the witnesses and videos of the second plane hit at the WTC are wrong due to science. THE TWIN TOWERS WERE HIT BY AIR PLANES. I’ve seen the photographs of the plane wreckage at the WTC and the testimony of people including NYC fire fighters.
911 was a Mossad operation. This deranged event has been highly beneficial for Israel.
The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.
“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.”
Americans are killing Israel’s enemies in the Middle East. Israelis will make a fortune off the soon to be built TAPI pipeline. Afghanistan has to be controlled in order to safely build the pipeline and to keep it from being blown up. Israel want to control the nations and the natural resources in the region via the muscle of the USA.
I really don’t believe 911 was a US government operation. It was a Mossad operation and they had help from traitors in our government, mostly Jewish Zionists. 911 has been terrible for the USA except for the military complex. The cost of these wars is estimated at $4 trillion. The world hates us for these wars.
If the US government wanted an excuse to attack the Middle East just hitting the Pentagon would have been sufficient; no need to kill over three thousand civilians and crush the economy.
Due to Norm Minetta’s testimony about Cheney’s comments and the fact that Cheney was overseeing the war games on 911 that caused confusion among those protecting the USA he should be investigated. If the Mossad decided to include Cheney in their deranged plan they probably only told him about the Pentagon attack. I don’t think Cheney would have gone along with the twin towers attack.
If you look at the activities of George Bush that day its obvious he was not part of it. He made a fool out of himself and looked very suspicious due to being inactive. Why would he do that? Why would his handlers let him do that? My guess is he was set up by AIPAC, which ran the White House and still do.
People can use science to discredit the evidence if they choose. This makes the Mossad smile. As Gordon Duff once wrote, there are more Mossad agents in the 911 truth movement then there were FBI agents in the KKK.
If you know the history of the Mossad and their deranged false flags to blame the Muslims it’s even more obvious 911 was a Mossad operation. Also, Jewish Zionists ran the Pentagon so it was easy for the Mossad to plant explosives in the Pentagon during the renovation.
We agree on who was responsible. See “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, http://tinyurl.com/45ltba , and “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-9-11-Research-Anti-Sem-by-Jim-Fetzer-090615-95.html .
I have also invested a lot of time evaluating the alleged “witness reports” at the Pentagon and in New York. See, for example, my three two-hour interviews with Mike Sparks about the Pentagon witnesses you are citing. Go to http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com and find these shows:
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2010
Mike Sparks
Pentagon witnesses, Part III
MONDAY, JANUARY 18, 2010
Mike Sparks
More 9/11 Pentagon witnesses
MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 2010
Mike Sparks
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses, Part I
Do you have any idea what would happen if a Boeing 757 hit a stationary lamppost? It would rip the wing off the plane and no doubt ignite the fuel, which is stored in its wings. It would spin around, its tail would snap off, and it would have made a mess of the lawn. None of that happened. You appear to be very gullible.
You need to review documentaries from Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Citizens Investigation Team. Try “9/11 Intercepted” and “National Security Alert”. You seem to have very little understanding of the events you want to discuss. You need to become better informed.
I take it you do not understand the probative importance of scientific research. There is an order of precedence in evaluating evidence, where a certain sign of deceit and deception is the violation of laws of aerodynamics, of engineering and of physics. The videos in New York, as I have explained, cannot be genuine.
Your theory of a “100% Mossad op” does not withstand critical scrutiny. The Mossad could not have caused the stand down of the US Air Force on 9/11 nor could it have orchestrated an attack upon the Pengaton. Gen. Richard Myers, among others, was involved.
This was a collaborative effort between neo-cons in the Department of Defense with a little help from their friends in the Mossad. You should take a look at the most recent studies by Alan Sabrosky, who, in my opinion, unlike you, has it almost exactly right.
Jim: Do you have any idea what would happen if a Boeing 757 hit a stationary lamppost? It would rip the wing off the plane and no doubt ignite the fuel, which is stored in its wings. It would spin around its tail would snap off, and it would have made a mess of the lawn. None of that happened. You appear to be very gullible.
LOL! Numerous witnesses saw it occur so it very likely happened! Why would the culprits bother to brake up lamp posts then put them on the ground and hope nobody watches them do it! That’s hilarious! It wasn’t necessary. To me the evidence trounces your scientific theory.
Jim: You need to review documentaries from Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Citizens Investigation Team. Try “9/11 Intercepted” and “National Security Alert”. You seem to have very little understanding of the events you want to discuss. You need to become better informed.
Brian: That’s hilarious. Pilots for Truth announced at their website the shutdown one of their sections for one month. Why did they do this? Because I provided ample evidence that the Pentagon was hit by a plane. This occurred just as they put out a study about the Pentagon. Rob Balsamo got angry with me and very obnoxious. Due to my evidence, I never made rude comments to him, they suspended me for a month. I’m probably still suspended.
I think Pilots for 911 Truth may have been hijacked by the Mossad and Sayanim. Prior to the suspension they banned me from their website because I updated my Mossad did 911 text with links. When I posted the original text a few monitors were furious and called me an ant-Semite and that type of crap even though I never mentioned Jews.
Jim: The videos in New York, as I have explained, cannot be genuine.
Brian: LOL! I’m supposed to believe all the amateur videos and images are fake. That’s ridiculous. How did all the air plane parts get to the WTC area? Do you agree with Dimitri Khalezov that the culprits tossed plane parts in the WTC area to fool people?
Jim: The Mossad could not have caused the stand down of the US Air Force on 9/11 nor could it have orchestrated an attack upon the Pentagon. Gen. Richard Myers, among others, was involved.
Brian: As I’m mentioned before the Mossad had helpers in our government. Where is the evidence that shows Richard Myers was involved?
I think the Mossad and the sayanim in the 911 truth movement began this silliness that the US government did 911 to divert attention away from the obvious evidence that the Mossad did 911.
Also, a total stand down probably wasn’t required. If you had properly done your research you would know the simulated hijacking and false blips on the radar screens and other aspects of the war games seriously confused people including high level personnel; they thought the actual hijackings were part of the simulations.
Excerpts from War Games: The Key to a
9/11 USAF Stand Down
Five military exercises were held on 9/11, and this resulted in flight controllers, commanders and pilots being unable to distinguish real world events from exercise scenarios.
VOICE TWO: Do we want to think about scrambling aircraft?
VOICE ONE: Oh, God, I don’t know.
VOICE TWO: That’s a decision somebody’s going to have to make probably in the next ten minutes.
VOICE ONE: Oh, you know, everybody just left the room.
…and this effectively stood down the USAF when it was needed most.
excerpts from 9/11: Real World or Exercise?
“First thing that went through my mind was, ‘Is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?’” said Air Force Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, who was at a command center at the Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. [ABC News]
Sgt. Jeremy W. Powell of North American Aerospace Defense Command’s (Norad) Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, N.Y., took the first call from Boston Center. He notified NEADS commander Col. Robert K. Marr, Jr., of a possible hijacked airliner, American Airlines Flight 11. “Part of the exercise?” the colonel wondered. No; this is a real-world event, he was told. [Aviation Week]
At 8:40, Deskins noticed senior technician Jeremy Powell waving his hand. Boston Center was on the line, he said. It had a hijacked airplane. “It must be part of the exercise,” Deskins thought. At first, everybody did. [Newhouse]
As you know through previous testimony from Gen. Eberhart to Congress, we were in the middle of a NORAD exercise at that particular time. Which means, that basically our entire staff was focused on being able to do the air operations center mission, which was our job to do. We had just come out of a video teleconference with the NORAD staff and with our folks at that particular time when I was handed note that we had a possible hijacking in Boston Center. And it had come from the Northeast Air Defense Commander Col. Bob Meyer (phonetic) who is commander up there and he had requested that I call him immediately. And I was upstairs in our facility. I immediately went downstairs and picked up the phone, asking on the way to my staff, is this part of the exercise? Because quite honestly and frankly, we do do hijacking scenarios as we go through these exercises from time-to-time. But I realized that it was not – that this was real-life. [9/11 Commission]
Yes, the Mossad took advantage of the war games. Dick Cheney was in charge of the war games and thus he should be investigated to see if he was part of the Mossad plan. Perhaps the high level Jewish Zionists in our government were involved in creating the extensive war games for that day.
Unless you show me otherwise Alan Sabrosky believes 911 was a Mossad operation. I do think he believes traitors in our government helped the Mossad.
Also you don’t seem to realize the Neocons pushing for the Iraq war were mostly Jewish Zionists. They’re devoted to Israel. They may have helped the Mossad.
Jim: This was a collaborative effort between neo-cons in the Department of Defense with a little help from their friends in the Mossad.
That comment would have Christopher Bollyn, Mike Rivero, Kevin Barrett and others shaking their heads in disbelief.
911 is fantastic for Israel and terrible for the United States. When investigating false flags for the culprits find out who benefits the most.
Hey no hard feelings, we just disagree.
Yes, we disagree, because you are willing to believe impossible things and I am not. Have you read my first two articles here? Because they demonstrate that you are mistaken. Not only did no Boeing 757s hit the Pentagon or crash in Shanksville, but the evidence of video fakery in New York is both abundant and compelling. I don’t quite understand how you missed them, since they are all about these issues. I have already replied about the purported “witnesses” at the Pentagon.
Did you miss this post? I have also invested a lot of time evaluating the alleged “witness reports” at the Pentagon and in New York. See, for example, my three two-hour interviews with Mike Sparks about the Pentagon witnesses you are citing. Go to http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com and find these three detailed shows:
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2010
Mike Sparks
Pentagon witnesses, Part III
MONDAY, JANUARY 18, 2010
Mike Sparks
More 9/11 Pentagon witnesses
MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 2010
Mike Sparks
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses, Part I
So when you reiterate “evidence” that has already been discounted–not to mention the physical proof that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon–I cannot imagine why you think you are smarter than Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which has made many important contributions to serious research on 9/11, including confirming the impossible speed of the Boeing 767 shown in those videos. I think you have some catching up to do. You are long on words but short on facts. Do some more research.
Alan Sabrosky even says he is 100% certain 9/11 was a Mossad operation. That isn’t much different from saying it was a 100% Mossad op.
The way Mossad works is not a secret. Mossad has their roots in the Jewish terror organizations that committed attacks and false flags against the British and the Arabs prior to the creation of Israel. They prefer to have others do the dirty work as not to leave their fingerprints. They call these helpers Saynaim, usually Jews devoted to Israel. They infiltrate ‘terrorist groups’ and bait them into hate. Muslim extremists are a result of Mossad manipulation of faith. The Mossad agent arrested recently in Egypt was responsible for the recent Copt vs. Muslim violence for example. We now know that the PFLP is a Mossad operation. The Palestinian terrorists responsible for the failed siege on Jordan, Black September, and the related airline hijackings were Mossad agents or proxies. Mossad failed to provide intelligence that could’ve prevented the Beirut barracks bombing as reported in a book by a former Mossad agent and also in Jimmy Carter’s book about Apartheid.
Mossad has probably infiltrated and corrupted international intelligence agencies. The Neocons and Israeli/Zionist Jews involved are generally lumped into the “100% Mossad” theory although if you want to pick it apart it is probably more like a 80% Mossad op with the other 20% being people like Rumsfeld and Cheney (but probably not Bush, they sent him to go read to kids). It’s an inside job in the sense that a shadow government within our government was responsible for it on the inside. A rouge ‘black op’ of sorts. The people involved are overwhelmingly Jewish with ties to Israel.
BTW Flight 77 was traveling up to 600 mph when it hit those light pulls. I would imagine that it damaged the wing but that doesn’t mean it would have exploded right away. In 1987 a DC-9, Northwest Flight 255, crashed near Detroit after clipping and Avis Rental Car sign on take off. It didn’t explode until it hit the ground. The lamp posts were stationary and made of aluminum. Nothing to see here
You have apparently not read “Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake”, by Alan Sabrosky, where he explains that he now regards these atrocities as having involved elements of the American government, especially the neo-cons at the Department of Defense, as having played an important role: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/28/demystifying-911-israel-and-the-tactics-of-mistake/ The Mossad and the neo-cons were complicit together on 9/11.
He and I are on the same page. The stand-down of the US Air Force and attack on the Pentagon were beyond the reach of the Mossad. But for Cheney’s order not to shoot down a plane that was approaching the building, it would have been shot down. Check out Norman Mineta’s testimony, which I managed to get on “Hannity & Colmes” TWICE, which are archived on YouTube. Mossad was involved, no doubt, but, as I have explained, more probably in New York than anywhere else.
And what do you imagine would happen if a plane traveling 500 mph (not 600 mph–neither of which would have been possible at that altitude, by the way) hit just one lamppost floating in space? Are you familiar with the damage done by hitting a tiny bird weighing a few ounces in flight? You really do not appear to have given this much thought. What you believe is a fantasy!
“Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake”, by Alan Sabrosky. From the article:
I am also absolutely certain as a strategic analyst that 9/11 itself, from which all else flows, was a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation. But Mossad did not do it alone. They needed local help within America (and perhaps elsewhere) and they had it, principally from some alumni of PNAC (the misnamed Project for a New American Century) and their affiliates within and outside of the US Government (USG), who in the 9/11 attacks got the “catalytic event” they needed and craved to take the US to war on Israel’s behalf, only eight months after coming into office.
Here it is again: that 9/11 itself, from which all else flows, was a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation.
From Jim: This was a collaborative effort between neo-cons in the Department of Defense with a little help from their friends in the Mossad.
You’re busted! You do not have the same notion as Sabrsoky.
Sabrosky does not think 911 was done with a little help from the Mossad.
Israel continues to reap huge benefits from 911 and the USA has severely suffered. Because of 911 the sheeple of America will believe the next Israeli false flag actually came from Muslims. Oh my, Iran and Pakistan long time targets of Israel will be attacked by the USA in retaliation with the American citizens cheering on the attacks. The Mossad will be smiling.
By the way PNAC was written by Zionists. It comes from a A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm which was a report for Netanyahu. The principle authors were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser. Israel didn’t want to execute the plan so it was sent to America to let the American stooges carry it out.
From Wikipedia:
It was Former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle was the “Study Group Leader”, but the final report included ideas from James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser.
When I wrote to him to invite him to be my featured guest on “The Real Deal”
on Monday, 1 August 2011, I included a copy of a recent post I had made in
the comments section for one of these articles–probably “More Proof”–and
he wrote back to say that I was correct and that he’d like to be on the show.
By your account, you know Alan’s mind better than he does! That’s rich!
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:40:59 -0500 [07/15/2011 10:40:59 AM CDT]
Subject: Invitation to an interview . . .
Alan,
In response to a lengthy post by DJ, I posted this reply. I would like to know that I
have your position properly defined here, since I would not want to misrepresent you.
. . .
“This is a very fine post, where I agree overwhelmingly with most of it. Alan Sabrosky
has modified his position somewhat to acknowledge the role of the neo-cons, especially
those in the Department of Defense, as having been in collusion with elements of the
Israeli government and the Mossad. I think that is the right move, especially because,
as I see it, the “stand down” of the US Air Force and the attack on the Pentagon itself
could not have taken place without complicity at the highest levels of the American
military, including the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. So
the claim that it was “100% an Israeli operation” does not appear to be defensible, when
all of the evidence is taken into account.
“If I am wrong about this, I would be glad to be corrected, but it seems to me that the
positions I outlined in “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, http://tinyurl.com/45ltba , and
elaborated upon in “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”,
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-9-11-Research-Anti-Sem-by-Jim-Fetzer-090615-95.html,
are compatible with Alan Sabrosky’s most recent statements, “Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake”,
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/28/demystifying-911-israel-and-the-tactics-of-mistake/
and “Israel’s Hidden Faces”,
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/03/06/israels-hidden-faces-a-long-days-night-for-us-all/
both of which I greatly admire.”
Jim,
The statement for Alan’s article is very clear: I am also absolutely certain as a strategic analyst that 9/11 itself, from which all else flows, was a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation.
Brian: He does mention they had help.
One Quibble:
I believe “nanothermite” was used….as a chemical catalyst for a scalar reaction.
http://webfairy.org/harp/beamweapon.htm, an article written before 911, tells of a secret plan where tiny drones spray a dust which is triggered by a laser weapon.
http://webfairy.org/thermite
shows an actual thermite blast which has the same deep black chimmney shape cloud that accompanies the hits and collapses.
Alumina in the aftermath air is indicated by the picture of the “building shape cloud” shown on the page
http://webfairy.org/7
Alumina powder creates a hexagonal grid, replacing characteristic randomness, the only excuse I can imagine for a cloud with straight edges. Since alumina is an ingredient in “nanothermite”, I consider this an indication of it’s use.
Judy Wood notices that before a scalar blast there is “lathering” – a dust cloud seen beforehand also at that Twin Cities Bridge that “collapsed” from four posts simultaneously, supposedly from bird poop.
I have to say, exactly what kind of explosive was used to bring down the 3 WTC buildings is a detail. We don’t have to be going after each other over details. We have to stay on the track that will actually lead to the perps responsible for this crime, those with motive and opportunity in particular.
So much has been written about 9/11, including, I’m sorry to say, everything by David Ray Griffin, that doesn’t dare use the words, Mossad and sayan.
This is a very naive remark. The way it was done gives important clues as to “who did it”! 19 Islamic terrorists could not have arranged for the Twin Towers to be converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. This was a very sophisticated operation.
Think about it. If this was done using mini-nukes or lasers, masers, or plasmoids, do you think there would be any doubt that it could not have been done by Islamic terrorists? Do you have something against scientific or forensic investigations of crimes?
Well, David Ray Griffin may not talk about Israel and the Mossad, but I do. See “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, http://tinyurl.com/45ltba , and “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-9-11-Research-Anti-Sem-by-Jim-Fetzer-090615-95.html .
Or, for a more recent presentation, see “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?”, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ during a symposium with Kevin Barrett, Gilad Atzmon, and hosted by Ken O’Keefe. All of our presentations are archived there,.
I guess my remark is “naive” in the sense that I actually took seriously your remark that, “The most intense conflicts in relation to the 9/11 Truth movement, however, turn out to come from within and between research groups, which have all too often found themselves at odds and severely attacked and even denounced one another.” Which. you turned around and did.
We agree on almost everything, including what Alan Sabrosky has said, “If Americans ever know, ever know, that Israel did this, they are going to scrub them off this Earth, and they’re not going to give a rat’s ass what the cost is, they are not gonna care.”
Sure, I turned around and did because there is now enough available evidence to settle the matter. Do you have something against figuring out what happened? Do you want truths or falsehoods?
I was talking about the science, not the politics. There are many who are well-positioned to discuss the politics, but few the science. I think some of us can chew gum and walk at the same time.
Your inclination seems to be toward sarcasm and being combative, even when it isn’t necessary.
Right. The real criminals are walking freely among us while we endless debate these things
What we should really do is collectively open a criminal investigation against Michael Chertoff. Chertoff is an Israeli citizen. His mother was in the Mossad and his father was a Talmudic Rabbi.
Chertoff is co-author of the Patriot Act. He provided funding for the Bush campaign in 2000. During 9/11 he was the head of the criminal division of the Department of Justice where he prosecuted terrorists who were torched at Gitmoo employing such techniques as “Palestinian Hanging”
Chertoff had all the evidence linking the Israelis to 9/11 classified. In late 2001, Carl Cameron of Fox News was told by a US official that “Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.” Notice the first sentence. That is a confession. There is evidence linking Israelis to 9/11 but it is not discussed because it is classified.
Chertoff later became the head of the Department of Homeland Security further subjecting us to Israeli-style human rights abusing security. Today he heads The Chertoff Group, and the newish body scanners in use that have not been tested for safety are made by a client of his. This is also a conflict of interest
Benjamin Chertoff is his first cousin. Benjamin was responsible for the Popular Mechanics 9/11 ‘debunking’ article which further pushed the NIST report explanation on building 7. This theory has since been debunked even by experts. Building 7 is the smoking gun and surprisingly very few Americans know about it. Benjamin claims the relation is distant, but Christopher Bollyn called his ex-wife and his mother to confirm this was a lie. They are first cousins. When Michael was ‘sworn in’ to the head of DHS, Benjamin was present. Bollyn was wrongfully arrested, abused, and tasered in his own home for continuing to mention Chertoff.
Chertoff should never have been in charge of USA security given his controversial background. Obviously other Mossad agents and Sayanim (neocons and zionists) were involved, but Chertoff (which means Devil’s Son in Russian) is a major piece to the puzzle. Arrest him, try him, and expose the truth for all Americans to see so we can finally have justice.
We know these things, which I address in “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, http://tinyurl.com/45ltba , “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-9-11-Research-Anti-Sem-by-Jim-Fetzer-090615-95.html , and more recently during a London symposium in “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?”, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/
I don’t understand this seething anger over scientific research that can settle — or contribute to settling — what actually happened on 9/11. Michael Chertoff is a well-know commodity in this context. How do you think the Twin Towers were destroyed? And what would happen if a legal case were brought based upon a false theory?
I recommend that you given this more thought, Smitty. These things are interrelated. If we cannot prove that 19 Islamic terrorists were NOT responsible for 9/11, how can we prove who was? You are putting the cart before the horse. And what have you done lately to bring Michael Chertoff to justice? What are you doing about this?
I have given this plenty of thought over the past 8 years. We can endlessly speculate what brought down the twin towers, it isn’t important. Sorry, it’s not. Building 7 is more important. Building 7 collapsed on it’s own footprint like a controlled demolition due to ‘fire’. The third building in history to ever due so, the other two being the twin towers. Except building 7 was not hit by an aircraft.
The media was likely being unknowingly fed pre-scripted ‘reports’ which resulted in the BBC reporting the collapse 26 minutes prior to it actually occurring. Larry Silverstein’s explanation for saying it was ‘pulled’ was that they pulled the firemen out of the building. Except there weren’t any firemen in it. There was a person in the building who managed to get out in time. He heard explosions. He also mysteriously died after coming forward with this. WTC7 also ‘coincidentally’ held Giuliani’s Command Center.
Scripted leaks are probably why we heard a lot of false positives on 9/11. For example, a few reports on 9/11 noted that a possible hijacked aircraft was in the vicinity of the Sears Tower. The Sears Tower was evacuated due to a very real threat. This can be brushed off as a precaution, but coupled with the leak it makes more sense. Flight 93′s flight path was directly headed for Chicago. A month later in Philly Israeli Mossad agents in an Urban Moving Systems van were arrested. The van contained extensive video of the Sears Tower. Because of the delays and grounding, flight 93 was likely in route to building 7. It was also likely intercepted and shot down. This could be why we have such a weak explanation for a very serious ‘smoking gun’
Why are you being so combative? Scientific research of what? That no planes were involved? That’s ridiculous. What am I doing? Well I try to make as many people as possible aware of what they do not know so that they can objectively ask questions without falling for disinfo. The more people are aware, the more people we have asking the right questions which could lead to a collective call for a criminal investigation for people like Chertoff. You are putting the cart before the horse, the horses are the Israelis. You acknowledge the perpetrators and prefer to argue with a straw man (thermite, missiles, holograms or whatever, etc.)
This no-plane nonsense is like a psyop, I’m inclined to believe you are in on it. You know all the tricks.
Smitty, words are cheap. Denials are not proof. If you can refute the arguments I have made, then do it! Claiming I am “disinfo” when the evidence is on my side is irresponsible. Apparently, you don’t like the message so you attack the messenger. Why am I supposed to be “combative” when I am simply rebutting your baseless attacks? We know all about the script on 9/11 and Jane Stanley’s premature report about WTC-7. I talk about it in my public presentations. Check out “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?”, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621 and see how near or far apart we are on all of this. Thanks.
Also, what are YOU doing about anything? You spread disinfo and attack anybody who points this out. You refer to your research as OUR research as in all the collective 9/11 truth seekers believe you.
You replied to brian saying you agree the Mossad connection and then immediately fed more disinfo. Then you say “You appear to be very gullible” to discredit him without a reason. Then you try to say that the videos of NYC cannot be genuine which is RIDICULOUS and doens’t require scientifc evidence. It requires two eyes and if you don’t believe what you are seeing, you must be very gullible.
The Mossad theory withstands critical scrutiny. The neocons are a part of the theory.
You replied to me and said I apparently did not read Alan Sabrosky’s article then say you are on the same page. I read the article. I am on the same page as him. You are NOT because you are continuing to dispense disinfo incompatible with what Sabroksky is saying. You are simply hoping a casual reader of the comments section reads that and supports your theories and ignores criticism. I am well aware of the damage a bird strike inflicts. I am also aware that this happens on takeoff and landing when it isn’t traveling 500 mph. I’m not saying there wasn’t any damage. How dare you say I believe in fantasy when you PROPOSE a ridiculous fantasy obvious for anybody to see.
You call tcarlson naive for no reason at all. You’re naive for dismissing the Mossad connection as less important which conflicts with you being on the same page as Sabrosky. Then you make some weird comparison with politics and science. What science? Pseduoscience isn’t science
This is idiotic. I summarized Alan’s views in an earlier comment and sent it to him to ask if I had it right and we were on the same page–and he replied that I had it exactly right! So I don’t know why you are here when you don’t know what you are talking about. I have explained that 9/11 was an inside job involving collusion between the neo-cons and the Mossad many times. So what am I supposed to have wrong there? Sabrosky and I agree about it–and he will be my guest on “The Real Deal” on Monday, 1 August 2011, from 5-7 PM/CT. You can listen on revereradio.net and see which of us is right. You and tcarlson seem to think you are entitled to post any drivel you like regardless of the evidence–and accuse those of us who are doing the serious science about 9/11 as “disinfo agents”! That’s pretty bad. The proof of video fakery in New York is rock-solid and you have done nothing to refute it. The science and the politics of 9/11 are inextricably intertwined. You cannot pursue the guilty without proving what was done, how it was done, and by whom it was done. If you were to pursue those who actually are the guilty parties BUT BASED ON A FALSE THEORY, you would be laughed out of court–and the double-jeopardy provision would probably end the matter right there. The nanothermite theory is a false theory since nanothermite cannot possibly have done what its partisans have claimed on its behalf. So if I am going to fault the government for its absurd theory of the case–as I do in “Why doubt 9/11?” on the Scholars home page at http://911scholars.org (in the upper-left hand corner)–I am not going to approve of shoddy research from within the 9/11 movement. If that is too difficult to wrap your mind around, realize that we have to have an iron-clad case if we are going to take legal action against the perps. False theories are not good enough!
http://tinyurl.com/453pqz8
Fetzer:
“If we cannot prove that 19 Islamic terrorists were NOT responsible for 9/11, how can we prove who was?”
===/
Alert! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!
Beware of misdirection routine / CogDis Trap of ‘Bogus Authority’,
in lieu of Accountability (thou shalt not verify – there will be no due
processing – yer either with us or against us) – ‘Official 9/11 Conspiracy
Theory/Story Position’ = “you have to convince yourselves & others by trying to prove us wrong”
– NO, We Don’t have to prove ‘The Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory/Story’ Wrong.
We don’t have to ‘substantiate’ ‘their story/fiction’ by trying to prove an
invisible pink elephant is Not in the corner of the room.
‘The Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory/Story’ is Swiss Cheese Fiction.
We need to stop chasing fiction & dancing with obstructionists, so to
instead better embrace the Accountability we seek to resolve the salient 911
issue/question:
WhoDid911? We Need To Know!
The Accountability We Seek,
rather than conspiracy fiction misdirection, heckled marginalization routines
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GovernmentShadow/message/28952
The Looniest Of All 911 Conspiracy Theories
http://www.rense.com/general69/statee.htm
fear & control (& The Official 9/11 Story of Bogus Authority)
‘The 9/11 Solution’? / “I Want To Believe”
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WhoDid911/message/3667
Archetype of the Apocalypse & The Schlock&Awe 9/11 Brainwash ‘Solution’?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PSYWAR/message/636
’Though I walk through the valley of schlock, I fear no weasel’
=====
Dear Mr. Fetzer, I hope this helps to clarify…
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ClearCog/message/18
====
The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.
-Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
Who Did 9/11? We Need To Know!
Bowman stays on point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZToRnx8rwHs
Umm, basically the buildings were caused to collapse due to explosives but first hand by the threats made by islamic extremist and jewish media moguls. You know jews are always looking for an opportunity to capitalize on anything especially if it takes the least of efforts. And you know the muslims are willing to do anything for attention…. Come on commit suicide for a virgin when in reality they don’t think that God has male genitals. That is dumb for real. But any how the pentagon was also attacked to knock out any information they had pertaining to the days Osama had worked with the C.I.A. and also a business man. When in reality he played the person wanting payback but really infiltrated started to further his religious beliefs ways and understandings. Where he chose to read and interpret on his behalf that the planes falling out the sky was the end of the world. Atleast for the eastern world.
So, he decided to attack the twin towers where a lot of money was hidden and locations for mass money deposits were without the world with stocks being included. He displayed if not presented the attack as a call from God. I explained to him i will say though he had so many “puppets” it’s some what funny. But, any how I explained to him that planes had been falling out the sky for some time now whether becuase of bad weather or low fuel or simply a pilot falling asleep at the wheel. Then to you have the highjacking.
He knew working as an c.i.a. agent that he couldn’t be arrested for making such threats due to f.b.i. mostly working land and too f.b.i. need for time before actually investigating someone with the intentions of arresting and imprisoning. That is if the job is done right. But, there are those that know the hobbies of many f.b.i. agents cross dressing edgar with a knack for setting up the innocent. Besides that he was a muslim so for him to kill one or two american agents would have been good enough for him though their ideals state that the room is to be full of non believers but then again two agents and a plane full of jihad is hardly the martyrdom move. Then again he’s most likely the one that lets the spirit control him so he freely makes decisions to use others and blow up things thinking of hisself as the plane c-4 or explosive device. But, yeah they play don’t like each other for many years and by many years i mean thousands upon thousands where they convert people through murder tactics.
All racist organizations are supported by muslims then too the money comes from the jews then you have grecians but even they went back to egypt and come to find out they were practicing and being taught wrong so yes fraternities and sororities are actually apart of the mental breakdown economic collapse and genocide of just as well as innocent….. whom play the set you free role but hey what is it when someone is willing to play gullible cause they supposedly have a someone or many persons to blame something on. So, they went on to push the homosexual agenda. to keep people infatuated with relationships identity and sex where it is easy to make some look like the fool if not the crazy person. Then whom ever wants to play religious or most oppressed so be it. Sad but true. By the way i wrote the letter forewarning the government of their goals knowing those with the money interested in making a fool of people and paying for sex would come to surface after their business partners were caught.
Thank you all for your time i also made mention to ask the workers to leave some are chose to stay from what i understand with all that smoke it’s hard to tell may be the people that fell or jumped from the window were the passengers on the plane. I don’t know but i do know about 5 social networking sites, Ipads Ipods mp3 players, homeland security and i.c.e. didn’t come from no where let alone the 40 to 50 rights for native americans and asians let alone blatant rights for blacks as well as whites. But then again you can lead a horse to water but it doesn’t mean the horse is going to drink.
So, why the sudden change of heart withing the political infrastructre of america let alone the sudden trust from european royalty pertaining to “AMERICANS”….. ?? But, here i am struggling for a pack of smokes so don’t feel bad i’m sure the gay homosexual agenda is of most extreme importance. You all have a good day that war had been going on for nearly 50 years they acted as business associates looking to avenge the deaths of russians and africans but to no evail got caught up laughing at and pointing the finger by the way egypt and ethiopia are not the same and for the most part egypt is seperate to AFRICA.
You all be blessed and again have a good day. Obama asked me to write him in regards to my ideas regarding cures but i decided to go ahead and relieve a lot of stress on his behalf and too see whether not another goal and hobby of mine from the last 2 decades will pay off. Cause i’m tired of being treated as the dead beat nobody whom is unaware of those into disrespecting as much as possible.
those are the truths be careful when responding if not comprehending thank you again. I will be contacting Obama on these matters as well as the cures for gangrene, cancer, tumorous rashes, aids/hiv, and alzheimers…… i too have vaccines for at least three of these.
I’m certainly no physicist nor do I know explosives, but I do know, first hand, about various “government” contractors under the heading of DARPA,,, that certainly could have developed combinations of explosives and microwaves that never made it into technical literature. What is the force of the new navy “capacitor discharge” cannon? capacitors dont take up a lot of space and could easily have been consumed in the smithereens. Of course this is conjecture, but it is enough to think on until we get a break of leaked information in the future. How much “radiation evidence was found? I’ve not heard. What stuff leaves minimal or traces? The “military” most certainly has played with microwave weapons. When a presidential helicopter was brought down in 90s (year escapes me now) in some woodsnear DC, and the crew were found “fried inside out” this was never reported by MSM, but the man who was first on the scene told about it on my radio show. (Damn getting old with memory loss!) anyway what would simultaneous microwave fire do for explosives?
PS— my comment suggests, I hope, that we have enough physical evidence, and more than enough circumstantial evidence to win any kind of fair trial vs. the Zionist perpetrators, like Chertoff and Cheyne,
Silverstein, et al. How do “we” get some action? I’m waiting for some folks to hijack Limbaugh and Hanniy programs and force some truth out into the dark airwaves. just dreaming.
Tom, actually, as I mention somewhere above, I was able to bring some 9/11 truth on to “Hannity & Colmes” not just once but twice. The first time, Ollie North was standing in for Sean Hannity; but the second, it was Sean himself. They are on YouTube. Let me see if I can track the links to post them:
With Ollie North: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08va1i6LYPc
With Sean Hannity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbNszu6zbe4
I was also featured on “The Factor”, but Bill O’Reilly doesn’t let his guest say much. Check this one out, too:
With Bill O’Reilly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pDyB9BcKsA&feature=related
Funny no mention of disinfo as a factor in the “competing” theories. Wonder why? Guess it’s just a rift among scientists with different research results. By the way, there is no mistaking that you do “endorse” space beams, back then and now as it is glowingly praised on your blog as of June 2011. You can use the appearance of logic, the appearance of critical thinking and the appearance of scientific reasoning to make it appear that some people actually believe the Space Beams theory, the fake planes theory and/or the mini-nukes theory, but only if your goal is to make 911 Truth appear as kooky and easy to dismiss as possible. Note that debunkers seize upon these dodgy theories to easily ridicule 911 Truth.
Well, I am addressing the scientific questions involved here, not the motives of those who are advancing different theories. I will leave that to you! You are not the first person to trade on rumor, speculation, and hearsay with regard to my views. I have been fascinated by Judy’s work and supported her research as a possible explanation for how it was done. I don’t know about you, but I am highly committed to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11. If you have ARGUMENTS that show I am wrong about the issues I have been addressing here on VT, present them. The rest of your remarks are simply rubbish.
Right back at you. Look, I can’t argue with you that you are wrong, because we are in total agreement. Neither of us believe what you are postulating. Your three primary theories (“alternate hypotheses”) are turds in the punchbowl of 911 Truth, and you know that so what you do is go on and on about the quality of the crystal punch bowl, how delicious the punch recipe is and how cold the ice is, all of which are undeniable, as is the fact that no one wants to drink it.
The weapon of choice of debunkers is to bring up space beams, no-planes and min-nukes to discredit 911 Truth. Tell me I’m wrong.
You should change your handle to “bs”. As I have explained many times, it is necessary in scientific inquiries to consider all the available alternative theories. I go through the process in an article titled “An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11″, http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/an-analysis-of-the-wtc-on-911 I am now in the position to extend the analysis, because one of the competing theories–that nanothermite was the principal cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers–has been eliminated. I really do not understand: do you have something against scientific research? serious reasoning? intelligence? Because what you are writing here provides a strong case for bias against intelligence. Get over it. There is no reason in the world why you should be able to figure out things that require specialized scientific, technical, and intellectual competence–which do not appear to be your strong suits. So change your handle as a move toward honesty in adversing–and let us do our research without your constant interference and accusations where you simply have no idea how to analyze the 9/11 evidence.
It’s your credibility that I question and only because you insist on squandering it. I have a problem with those who posture as scientists in the pursuit of truth who are spreading easy to debunk disinfo. As for your questions they are relevant, but only to disinfo, “get people asking the wrong questions and the answers they come up with won’t matter.”
I’m sorry, bf. I guess I can’t please everyone. If you look at what I have been doing, you will find no basis for your ridiculous smears. My take is that you are not very good at thinking things through and have to resort to childish responses like those you have posted here. And if I have anything wrong, you most certainly have not shown that–nor do you appear to be capable of doing that. I don’t understand what people like you are doing posting about subjects when they know so little about them. The article is about nanothermite. Do you have anything to say about that? Do you believe that a substance which has a detonation velocity of 895 m/s can destroy concrete or steel, when that would require detonation velocities above 3,200 m/s or above 6,100 m/s?
No one postulates nanothermite did all the work, only that it was found in the dust. You exaggerate the claim to discredit it.
Say I took a folic acid pill, got a blood test and told you that the test revealed that folic acid was in my blood sample, I would expect you to scoff at that and tell everyone how you easily debunked my claim that my blood was made of folic acid.
No, I am not “exaggerating the claim to discredit it”. Go back and reread the quotes from Gage and David Ray Griffin. I have reposted them below. Steve made a mistake and the research community has never recovered from it. Ask any random 9/11 student about nanothermite and they will not say, “Well, it has no rapid gas expansion capacity so it probably should not even be characterized as an ‘explosive’. And since its detonation velocity is only 895 m/s, it cannot be responsible for pulverizing the concrete (at 3,200 m/s), much less shattering the steel (6,100 m/s).” They are willing to let a false impression stand, even though it misleads the research community and conveys a degree of understanding about how this was done they do not possess. I don’t know why you want to stand up for deceit and deception in science, but that is not something that Mark and I are going to tolerate, especially within a “9/11 Truth” movement.
The Pentagon attack was the result of an airplane. There is simply too much evidence to prove it was not. It is worthless to use “science” or in your case pseudoscience in order to prove something that didn’t happen. It’s like trying to prove the earth is flat.
Photo and video anomalies can be explained by photo stitching (journalists stitch photos together all the time) and compression artifacts. There could be a lot of reasons for hiding the surveillance video. Secondary explosions is one reason, which you do see on one of the FOIA released frames.
Most of the Pentagon stuff is taken out of context, including photos. There are plenty of photos showing the impact hole without fire spray, plenty of photos showing debris on the lawn, and plenty of 757 aircraft parts inside the Pentagon where most of the damage and bodies were. When somebody says “this is not a 757 landing gear” readers should look for themselves rather than take their word for it. Because it is a 757 landing gear. There are plenty of eye witness accounts and air traffic controller accounts. Something knocked down the lamp poles, maybe that’s why the wings bent inward even I dunno. The point is it was an airplane. Only a gullible useful idiot or misinformationist would disagree. No sense in wasting time using “science” to disprove a fact. Why kill the passengers and dispose of a plane then fire a missile? Why not fly a plane into it and kill two birds with one stone?
Your WTC video fakery claim is ridiculous. Nobody believes in that hoax nonsense. The science about Newton’s law of motion or whatever you say makes no sense. Watch videos of bunker busters ‘disappearing’ into the ground before exploding. Or here I found this video of a Libyan fighter plane shot down crashing into a building where it ‘disappears’ before exploding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8s3Tp8FD58
Media fakery implicates a huge conspiracy which nobody would be able to keep secret. It also doesn’t account for all the people who saw the planes. That’s not instilled memory. No planes is disinfo, NOBODY in the truth movement supports this.
People like Fetzer (or whoever is writing using his name) continue to mix legit questions and theories with unbelievable nonsense, claim it’s science, and get defensive and combative when people legitimately criticize them. They don’t want readers to come across this in the comments section, they want to have the final word to smear them. Because people read these comments and they might form opinions.
Larry Silverstein together with Israeli-Australian Frank Lowy leased and insured the WTC complex weeks prior to 9/11. Lowy and Jewish Israeli Rupert Murdoch are joined at the hip. Silverstein is also friends with three Israeli PMs, war criminal Ariel Sharon (who is brain dead these days), Ehud Barak, and Benjamin Netanyahu (Hawkish Likud, son of a terrorist). All three called Silverstein on 9/11. Netanyahu and Silverstein talk to each other every Sunday. Silverstein was well known in Israel for his disastrous Negev free trade zone. He famously said to ‘pull’ wtc 7 and later on he profited from the insurance.
The defense department neocons and zionists all had Israel connections. Feith, for example, was also the son of a Jewish terrorist. I already mentioned Chertoff. Then you got Dov Zakhei, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Satlof, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Edward Luttwa, Elliot Abrams, Richard Haa, among many other neocons and zionists working or influencing our defense department during that time period. All Israeli-first (or Israeli citizens) Arab and Muslim hating war mongers instrumental in us winding up in Iraq for no reason at all. All instrumental in suppressing the truth about 9/11. All Jews or cryto-Jews. Now in recent news we have Murdoch being implicated for wiretapping during 9/11.
The NIST report was done by Jews and the 9/11 commission was mostly Jews. They even had the guts to use Kissinger to head it before he left.
If the hijackers were all Muslim Pakistanis and our defense department was run by Hindu Indians, Hindu Indians were found driving with vans and bombs and filming the WTC while celebrating, Hindu Indians investigated the whole thing, etc. Well that would be a conflict of interest. Jews are 2% of our country and Jews hate Arabs. And Muslims. Yet here they are investigating 9/11, getting us to fight Israel’s wars, and classifying Israel’s involvement with 9/11 while making up BS stories and saying that’s the truth.
A lot of excellent comments.
Smitty,
maybe that’s why the wings bent inward even I dunno -This was the most accurate part of your whole post. You Doe No… And No Aircraft hit the Pentagon. Period!
You willingness to discount the available, relevant evidence is simply stunning. You commit fallacies I spent 35 years teaching my students in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning to avoid. My best guess is that those, like you, who want to bury their heads in the sand are simply too embarrassed to admit that they were wrong about the Pentagon, about video fakery, and (even now) about nanothermite. Face up to it, Smitty. You were wrong!
more fear tactics being implemented on the basis of something that is supposedly most new if not seemingly odd. If media has stooped to such a level then let’s talk about nanothermite i’m open minded and most willing to do the research. Not to poke fun at or even make fun of but i’ve come to the conclusion that these topic providers are now on what is to be their “last” “leg”. And if using such a device is able to cause that much damage then why not bring to the table what is to be known….. Those whom are willing to fly so many tons of steel into a building with the intentions of playing The Almighty and Most High Lord Emperor King God ELOHIM YAWAEH ALLYAH RAH with their mind still on the outcome of money being readily available to be strong armed if not coerced into their possession they should be attacked as they are maybe not to the degree that will get them to understand the hint. I’m not one for speaking in such worldly senses being that we live and die on one world. But, I have no quarrels with those whom have knowledge if not most extreme knowledge about this type of substance or matter.
i only thought people were looking for answers pertaining to the who what and why. Outside of bad business deals it only seems to me that the so called muslims and so called jews representing the west whole heartedly arrogant in nature, are the ones doing all the harm to the world. Plus they’re actually the ones doing their world bad. Well, not to give the go ahead but what if american citizens were to go to such extreme measures to look and act business minded only to bring the world of the west to it’s knees. I don’t want to mention american indians dropping everything and starting everything with helping hinuits of indian land defend their selves in such horrifying manners.
I can put together a plan right now and do so due to what it is that i know and then i can put a plan together to do the same out of a conceited and most selfish want regarding a relationship with The Creator of Elohi. But on a rough if not dry basis i’m interested in knowing about nanothermite outside of steel melting and buildings falling down. And if you look at america with the two lights shining out of new york it looks like “turtle island” some how turned to a busy eagle with eyes. Ahh nevermind what do i know !?!? i guess we can share information outside of masonry whether masonic or masonly in value or worth. I recently read about e bomb and that seems like a doozey. And from what i know about nanothermite pertaining to what i already know and understand i see it as another name for the liquid substance used in atom bombs and nukes or what ever that liquid is that burns somes flesh upon contact……
Honestly i’m just sharing cause i’ve been on the heels of these bored people with plenty priveleges and hobbies geared to scare tactics, genocide, and destroying. So, if someone were to lead this discussion in a direction then i’d be able to follow or maybe not like most would like because of how much i know. Sometimes it’s a good thing if not always a good thing to be able to speak in a broad sense making points all through out but hey where is the conversion leading is what i’m willing to ask if not have already asked. I noticed one person hint at where it should be…. if it’s looking at what new names or nicknames for nanothermite then i’m looking to help if it pertains to defending.
Dr. Judy Woods has left everyone in the ‘dust’. Where Did the Towers Go? She puts all of the other ‘theories’ to rest, especially when you look at WTC7. Her book included photos with analytical evidence that defy every other theory. Her work is the foundation for a new investigation. She has proved what happened, now it is up to others to determine the how, why and who is responsible.
I guess I am a lone thinker who appreciates the scientific model of investigating.All theories must be evaluated on it’s won merits and stand the scrutiny of scientific investigation.Is this 100% error free?Not on your life but at least scientists are willing for the most part of admit to their errors so that discovery can progress.Keep up the good work.There are more of us than you can believe that are working in the same environment to discover the ‘truth’,whatever and wherever it may lead us.
Richard Martin Stern (March 17, 1915 in Fresno, California – October 31, 2001 in Santa Fe, New Mexico) was an American novelist. Stern began his writing career in the 1950s with mystery tales of private investigators, winning a 1959 Edgar Award for Best First Novel, for The Bright Road to Fear.
He was most notable for his 1973 novel The Tower, in which a fire engulfs a new metal-and-glass frame skyrise.
Stern was inspired to write the novel by the construction of the World Trade Center in New York City.
Warner Brothers bought the rights to the novel shortly after its publication for roughly $400,000, and Stern’s book eventually became the movie The Towering Inferno, directed by Irwin Allen and John Guillermin and featuring an all-star cast. With an incredible fourteen million dollar budget, the film went on to earn over a hundred million at American box office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Martin_Stern
hindus and muslims have been at war for some time now but for the hindus they mostly fund their own wars through good merit and good work ethics. As for muslims well they if not copy are funded by the jews. So the hindus being seen riding in vans helping to thwart off the attacks is a good thing for it is more of a arabianislamic thing to prance around as american indain let alone arabian hindu. As for the hating well that’s just what many jews do. It’s almost like they have not agenda other than to hate and are given mass amounts of money for it. And they also hate asians whom have come up through basic muslim living i’m almost willing to say they’re more christian muslims then there are buddhist nazis or thule society advocates. But anyhow most are waiting for the big asian india showdown and they’re aware of what sell outs are so there for it is just the well you know the jews and muslims to go ahead claim same ol same ol as they normally do. Then too with the thwarting off of such anti-idiotly behaviours comming from such places as pakistan afghanistan and saudi arabia is seen as seal the deal type of thing between American “indians” american citizens and Indians of india if not hinduits….. Then to it is their we’re notplaying nor scared outcry towards those middle eastern tyrants which many aren’t up on calling them. They did blow up nearly 4 hospitals and 4 hotels in mid or late 90′s within india. So it is what it is!! have fun i’ll try to tap back in. Believe it or not we have more help than we know it’s just not a materialistic or money hungry society anymore. As obama said are you in or are you out. I wouldn’t advise slappin’ yo’ mama silly cause you’re so happy but giving yourself a hug is more what i’m about….but hey i’m only me. relay nanothermite info i haven’t forgot and all these political name types i’m willing to learn about if not stump. Continue sharing and caring. God, bless!!
With all due respect for many individuals (including the authors) who have spent an inordinate amount of time researching, analyzing and formulating various theories as to the precise mechanism, sequence of events and perpetrators involved with the World Trade Center and Pentagon explosions, I feel we must not lose sight of the big picture, as the precise details explaining what happened may never be uncovered, until perhaps one of the insiders confesses on his death bed.
By no means do I wish to take away from the hard work and sacrifice of many that come with researching this topic and expressing their conclusions publicly. We all know that those who dare to challenge the “official” version of this event face a litany of threats, personal attacks, career suicide, and other tactics used to silence them. Ironically, most of the critics of 9-11 researchers are only qualified to discuss the daily events of Brittney Spears or LaBron James.
I am also aware that it is natural for those whose lives have been consumed with identifying the precise details of the events surrounding 9-11 to focus on arguing for their case. However, we must not allow our energies to be wasted on this process of splitting hairs, as it will distract from the progress made thus far resulting from all of the research that has been done.
While further research will certainly be valuable, we must not lose focus of the big picture. Otherwise, further alienation of 911 truthers will result and nothing will be accomplished. As the authors realize, there are many 9-11 truther groups out there whose only function is to distract from the real perpetrators of this crime by blaming the US Government, with no focus at all on Zionists, Jews and non-Jews. Most (if not all) of these disruptive groups are being led by Zionists.
What is the big picture to focus on? It should not be the precise delineation of the mechanisms of demolition which collapsed the towers. While I appreciate the obsession to find the complete truth, I feel the key issue to focus on (at this point) is that it was a well-planned event that no unsophisticated groups such as Al Quada could carry out.
It is clear that the US Government was involved; to what extent is up for debate. What really matters (at this point) is that the US Government was involved, and we know the names of many of these individuals.
It is also clear to me that Mossad was involved; once again, to what extent remains up for debate. All that really matters (at this point) is that Mossad was involved.
Once Mossad and numerous individuals from the US Government have been indicted, we can then investigate their precise role. Until then, I feel we need to come to general agreements and push for justice, rather than splitting hairs on details.
We should agree to disagree (and I hate using that politically correct BS statement) on the fine details and agree to agree on the big picture.
I happen to believe that the US Government played a larger role than Mossad. However, this should not be taken to imply that Mossad had a minor role. At this point, it really does not matter which organization played the key role. This is something to focus on once criminal indictments have been made.
Each responsible party gained tremendous benefits from orchestrating this assault on the people of the United States. Washington has been able to create a virtual police state using the terrorist threat as a means by which to scare the people into its arms. And Israel has benefited from $4 trillion of US taxpayer money that has been spent on these ridiculous wars, at the large expense of hundreds of thousands of wounded US soldiers and thousands of fatalities. Also we must not forget the murders committed by US mercenaries at taxpayer expense, as well as more than 1 million Iraqi lives.
Finally, we must also focus on the implications of this historic cover-up, as well as the implications. This will further encourage us to demand justice. Our leaders in Washington, past and present clearly belong in prison.
Once we have completed a victorious “Seven Days in May” in the US, the US military must go into Israel and topple this criminal state. All of the criminals in Israel must be brought to justice and a new government must be installed. If Israel resists, it should face the most severe form of military aggression available according to a vote by all Non-Jewish Americans. In fact, the entire world should participate in this call to justice.
If Zionist-controlled Europe should reject this directive, the US should go into Europe and overthrow the Zionist ring leaders as well. I think it’s safe to assume that once Americans truly understand that certain key officials in Washington and Israel were behind 9-11, the people would vote for two forms of punishment; the electric chair for individuals and nukes for Israel.
Every single member of the Zionist Jewish mafia in the US should be forced to surrender all of its assets and stand trial for various acts of fraud, treason and other crimes against the American people, investors, tax payers and other crimes against all of humanity. Such an undertaking would focus on the financial industry and media. However, it would also involve the removal of this mafia element from the government, academia, and an immediate arrest of every Jewish organization in the US, under the suspicion of spying, most notably the AIPAC, ADL, American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, the Southern Law Poverty Office and the ACLU.
Judgment day is coming for Israel, that I am certain. I just hope it is sooner rather than later. Hopefully, the criminals in the US will also stand trial. This would result in tens if not hundreds of thousands of American Jews being indicted for variable involvement in various crimes. The Zionist mafia must be rounded up, first in the US, and then Israel and Europe if there is ever to be an end to the destruction and exploitation of humanity.
We can focus on debating the exact details about the events surrounding 9-11 forever. However, if this in fact does become the focus, we will never more forward towards prosecuting those responsible for this and other horrific crimes on humanity.
I recently posted a series of videos that some might find interesting. http://www.avaresearch.com/article_details-811.html
This is one of innumerable posts here that suggest the science of 9/11 is less important than the politics. But they go together. Without sound science, you have no case to promote politically–unless you are one of those who thinks that any position, no matter how poorly research, is “good enough”, even if it would be laughed out of court. That is the case for the nanothermite theory. It cannot have done what its proponents have claimed. If you doubt me, reread our study. The rug will be pulled out of any move to bring perpetrators to justice that is not based upon a thorough scientific and forensic study. PLUS I am very concerned about ALL ASPECTS OF 9/11. I doubt that there is any aspect on which I have not written or spoken or both. Check out “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, for example, if you want to know whom I hold responsible. I presented that publicly in front of the Capitol of the US on 15 April 2008. Or read “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?” I published that it OpEdNews in 2009. Or take a look at “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?”, which I presented in London in 2010. I recommend the latter, which is archived at http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ to see how I bring the science of 9/11 together with the politics. Because I think you have underestimated me. I not only finger the perps in these studies but present the kinds of evidence that implicates their complicity.
Truthman, I appreciate your post–I think! You continue to imply that I might be a shill for Israel and the Mossad, even after I have provided links to “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, http://tinyurl.com/45ltba , “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”, http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-9-11-Research-Anti-Sem-by-Jim-Fetzer-090615-95.html , and more recently during a London symposium in “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?”, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/
I have even thrown in my three appearances on FOX News, I was able to bring some 9/11 truth on to “Hannity & Colmes” not just once but twice. The first time, Ollie North was standing in for Sean Hannity; but the second, it was Sean himself. They are on YouTube. Let me see if I can track the links to post them: With Ollie North: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08va1i6LYPc With Sean Hannity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbNszu6zbe4
I was also featured on “The Factor”, but Bill O’Reilly doesn’t let his guest say much. Check this one out, too: With Bill O’Reilly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pDyB9BcKsA&feature=related I have given hundreds of interviews and public presentations, a substantial sample of which can be found on YouTube. This skepticism regarding my motivation is refuted by the available evidence.
I think all these scientific hypothesis and analysis (in such incredible detail) are silly … so silly they could easily be viewed as subterfuge. If you want to get to the bottom of 911, fairly simple detective work would get the job done. Putting names and faces and times and places on what needed to happen, not just to pull off the 911 inside job, but to clean it up. How tough would it be, for example, to verify that video surveillance tapes were confiscated from convenience stores in the area of the Pentagon minutes after impact? Who picked them up? Who dispatched them to be picked up? How tough would it be to follow the transactions that led to the remarkably efficient cleanup of the site? Who initiated those transactions and how were approvals so quickly obtained? How difficult would it to be to follow up with those claiming to have phone conversations with people aboard the planes when it is known such conversations could not have taken place? The questions just go on and on and a little detective work would eventually lead to how WTC1,2,7 collapses actually came about.
You’re serious, right? You must be a scientific ignoramus. Science is our most reliable method for the discovery of truth. Since nanothermite cannot possibly have blown apart the building, pulverized the concrete, or destroyed the steel, what was it good for? In case you didn’t notice, Steve Jones assured me at the American Scholars Conference in LA in June 2006 that it could do all those things. But we have found that it cannot. I have often observed that the official account of 9/11 is just fine as long as you are willing to believe impossible things. Well, the same is true for some theories about how all of this was done, including, it turns out, those that advance nanothermite as the key to the demolition. What is silly is thinking that we can understand the politics of 9/11 without understanding the science. You are missing the boat. No one is going to jail on the basis of a false theory.
It was used for the precise purpose of creating the foundation for disputes about what happened, and to have investigators destroy each other debating about which is the right theory. It’s a distraction. Without the distraction, people would ahv e no choice but to focus on and identify the unknow forces that necessarily were involved in producing the collapse.
Hey, this is where the Kennedy assassination theorizing went off in multiple directions about where the shots came from, which grous were involved, how many shots, weas the Zapruder film the Rosetta stone of the assassination, etc. etc. ad nauseum. And pretty soon, the assassination community turned into squabbling camps. Creating all the false leads to get peple to argue over such details was part of the plan. tohide what actually happened, and to distract people from looking where the truth was to be found.
Your high handed sarcasm directed against commentators who differ with you is doing a disservice to searching for the truth about 911.
Prien
So now you are an expert on JFK? It has been common in the history of science for different research groups competing to solve a difficult problem, like the structure of the DNA molecule, have been engaged in intense rivalry. Try James Watson, THE DOUBLE HELIX, for a nice example.
In the case of 9/11, Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, Neil Harrit, and others have come out four-square for the central role of nanothermite in explaining the destruction of the Twin Towers. When we take a closer look, it is not even physically possible that they could be right. In science, that is called “progress”.
By eliminating a false hypotheses, we are freed up to consider other, more reasonable, theories of how it was done, such as the use of mini-nukes (3rd or 4th generation, fission or fusion), lasers, masers, or plasmoids. How it was done offers insights as to the identity of the real perps, who were not Muslim.
And what makes you think I am not? Your snide remark challenging my qualification about the JFK assassination reminds of the fool representing the hearing aid industry who sought to discredit my testimony for the UAW by asking about my edcational background. PLaying along with his gag, I answered I had attended a university. Sensing blood, he bored in for the kill asking: “And did you finish.” Well yes, I said, I finished all but my dissertation for a doctorate in political science. I can still see the FTC attorney smile broadly, throw his pencil in the air, and shrug his shoulder, indicating, “well, he asked for it.”
By the same taken, my extended research in the documents and books written about the case, my legal and legislative background, and my focus on detecting and preventing fraud, deception and misrepresentation fully qualify me to comment on and assess matter relating to the JFK assassination.
As for your effort to refute my point that the JFK research community fractured into squabbling groups by claiming that it “has been common in the histroy of science for different research groups competing to solve different problems,,” and capping it by pointing to research on the DNA molecule, I guess youi forgot the paoint Thomas Kuhn made in the “structure of Scientific Revolution” that it is the struggle over competing paradigms in science that shifts research to new areas, but that “it is only during normal science that progress seems both obvious and assured. During those periods, however, the scientific comunity could view the fruits of its work i no other way.”
You purporterd refutation is, however, based on a contradictory foundation when, on the one hand, you claim progress occurs by conflict, while on the other hand you denounce anyone who opposes your take on events..
To carry on with the paradigm view, the paradigm conflict is between the government view of how 911 happended and the 911 truth community that rejects it and by pointing to the evidence that proves it is impossible for the event to have happened that way.
No normal work can be done within the 911 Truth Community when members engage in conflicts that rise to the level of opposition to the paradigm that explains the event and refutes the government’s entirely false claim.
That fact is that the nano-thermit finding was the first time anyone provided a scientific basis that fundamentally challenged the govt lie because any use of such explosives absolutely precluded bin laden as the culprit.
Did nano thermite account for everything that happened. By no means, as I have pointed out many times. The presence of such explosives does however, establish it was part of the picture, or do you deny those findings?
The fact is it was obvious the government view was absurd from the beginning. I was in Union Square in NY dencouncing the govt findings three days after the event. Within two weeks, I was calling it the US Reichstag fire. If you doubt me, check the Simpson newsgroup where I posted articles about this. Indeed, what convinced me beyond doubt the govt case was nonsence was information I received from mayoral staff who were guiding visitors through the site that it was really odd they were finding very little concrete in the rubble. That was impoassible if the building had merely collapsed into itself because of the alleged fires that could not possibly have made the concrete disappear.That imediately convinced me that unknown types of explosives were used that demolished the govt’s case.
My final point is there are ways to advance the argument without becoming distracting and destructive as you are doing that serves no progressive purpose.
Prien
Jim Fetzer
21 July 2011
Well, I have been deeply involved in JFK research for 20 years. I chaired or co-chaired four national conferences (Minneapolis 1999, Dallas 2000, Dallas 2001, and Duluth 2003), have published three collections of studies by experts on different aspects of the case (ASSASSINATION SCIENCE 1998; MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA 2000; and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX 2003) and, to the best of my knowledge, I have never heard of you. (Of course, I don’t even know your real name.)
I welcome serious criticism, but most of what has appeared here is merely an exercise in begging the question. Neither I nor Mark deny that thermite or thermate or nanothermite are incendiaries that can cut steel and that may have been used in the demolition of the Twin Towers. But the purported virtues of nanothermite have been grossly exaggerated–and most of the 9/11 community believes that it can destroy concrete and steel, which is not only not the case but is not even physically possible.
Take another look. We have documented every part of our argument and your insinuation that we are trying to sew division in the community is not only baseless but misconceived. A “truth” movement must be base upon the truth, where science is our most reliable method for discovering the truth. We spent a year as part of a research group studying this question before we published it. I am very confident our conclusions are sound. But I do not like and tend to abruptly dismiss shoddy criticism.
Right on Todd Marshall “viewed as subterfuge”, or as a classic disinformation campaign where the truth is hidden in all of this. 911 truth started off on the right foot discrediting the official conspiracy theory of what happened on 911.
One didn’t need to have a PhD in physics to know the WTC buildings didn’t come down as a result of jet planes crashing into them, or jet fuel melting steel. A ninth grade science class would do. Or for that matter working in a steel mill, foundry, or working in construction.
911 truth shot massive holes holes in the official conspiracy theory from the beginning and should have kept at it, shifting the burden of proof to the government. Instead we are fighting each other over who ,what ,where, when and now HOW for christ sakes.
Edgar,,,
Very nicely/succinctly stated, especially when attempt to get things back on track with this: “911 truth shot massive holes holes in the official conspiracy theory from the beginning and should have kept at it, shifting the burden of proof to the government. Instead we are fighting each other over who ,what ,where, when and now HOW for christ sakes.”
^5′s to you…you nailed it.
locoto
YES!
Simple Detective Work / Simple Due-Processing Accountability
(as opposed to, in lieu of, as solution to,
current ongoing Obstruction of Simple Due-Processing Accountability)
Please Sign me up / deputize me, Marshall!
—–
The ‘Science of Obfuscation’ Continues to Obstruct / Misdirect from Prosecution of such Blatant Criminal Obstruction of Justice regarding said required SIMPLE Due-Processing Accountability
(Obstruction of Justice distinguishes the most immediate criminal creeps,
found on our way toward Due Processing of WhoDid911? / 911Truth Accountability)
http://tinyurl.com/3waxtpm
Archetype of the Apocalypse & The Schlock&Awe 9/11 Brainwash ‘Solution’?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PSYWAR/message/636
Dear Mr. Fetzer, I hope this helps to clarify…
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ClearCog/message/18
Continuing to repost the same meaningless drivel is both inconsequentlal and a waste of time, Smacko.
Hey Jim,
Welcome to the VT staff.
Yes, some of us readers make strong comments. Oh well, you’re probably used to people disagreeing with your theories.
Alot of those being in most need of indictment have been fired already and are what i should say suffering from a subpoena, on the other hand they do have money so it’s like they’re procrasting hoping their fake black mail schemes can map out as blatant evidence spread through out the media. I too can draw horns on people if not individuals regardless of how much stress i’m under.
The thing is we well take a look at this blog of comments here “we” are currently pointing out the facts and views over the ideologies of those still privileged enough to relay threat if not terror over sites pointing instruments stopping hindering or supposedly helping their so called calling. Spiritual has already been overcome so now prepare for the wigging out and if you all unaware Obama has the right to kill being that he’s not in to the brainwashing of masses the people as a whole let alone american citizens have never seen such truth so their only response is to question his every move.
Then again he’s the president and isn’t someone you can go and stalk we’ll like many peoples hobbies here on earth. But slowly but surely at a great amount the empires are crumbling first the relaxed blasphemites i’m no muslim but i know a whole hell of a lot about islam. Then too you have the well should i say honest evil people their empire has crumbled BILDERBERg meeting interrupted and contrary to popular belief many foriegn citizens afar are actually willing to if not willing to again place these people under citizens arrest. So it’s not one big revolution only and since it’s a war on america the people have a right to protect their selves. Hard to find but the major majority of the c.i.a. was brainwashed ( think close to 400 agents) and the others whom stayed around scoffing at certain people were caught not only downloading pedophilia but downloading pedophila to sale again with no intention to arrest the purchasee…..
Not much detective work is needed the info is all over…. it’s that those wanting better need to know who to direct the oppression at. Yes for the first time the majority of the oppressed are standing up and fighting back to the best of their abilities. yeah stress is met with equally relieving stress relief as for me i got so many tag alongs willing to rob my every move it makes no got damn sense. That’s about all i can share for now and for me to begin to display my disbelief in someones’ pamperedness and charity case living is seen as greedy or selfish if not evil. I move as a regular person for a reason not to be stalked nor laughed at. We have a war here to think about it ancestors of so called slaves unable to read but follow stalk and steal never help only stress….
That’s the bullshit to be concerned about homeless too but this don’t make any sense how foriegners can move here able to read but people that have been here for hundreds of years are allowed to do what ever they like cause they can’t read. Now that’s terrorism under the door mat. You’re, welcome!!
If you start hearing or reading “sorry” all over the place then you’re probably surrounded by one whom specializes in robbery or is from a family of spies. Straight up!! And most african americans if not africans hated shaka zulu when he was the one that made it the thing to overcome those infatuated with evil and being slave masters. Most of their evil slave masters were females so the black lie you need to understand is that black women are the most strongest and took care of poor white kids helping them to read!?!? all of that is bullmess!! Thank, you. We can go there with history but the thing is gangrene doesn’t represent sovereign soveregin people get respect from those that can read as well as those who able read.
It’s a start then too a lot of black people love slavery they’re from the family of HADES….. And those are the moors catered to even though he left it out when putting the bible together cause he wanted them to hide in the waits. When really it’s supposed to read Assyrians and Hebrew moors also a misinterpretation on purpose is…..evil is where there is darkness. It’s supposed to read evil is where God is not allowed. hades are the muslim moors and aryans are the their business partners of old that play the role that black people play still to this day. They are the security of the zionist mafia whom are really the pharisees whom think is all about laughter and play when money isn’t the topic. A good question is asking an idiot if they’re allowed to have faith. So, yes a lot african americans are racist and most foreign exchange students from africa are racist towards natives but claim here to help the blacks that have been oppressed. They make that their goal any how Africa has money don’t listen to that nonsense it’s hard to keep up with cause they change face of currency nearly four to 8 years plus they accepted Hitler before they once accepted shakazulu and shakazulu is from africa…. Be stress free have a good day!
excuse me but the he statement pertaining to putting the bible back together is regarding James of Scotland and Shakespeare that put down what he said. Scotland was told to not forget the moor hebrew…. Which in where we can understand through the onslaught of so many russian (caucasian jews) and black jews. But we’re only told about the 5 million white jews of germany when 10 million black jews died and like 30 million caucasian jews died during the reign of hitler.
i wrote a letter long time ago pertaining to what the cure for aids/hiv and too a program called pipeline it also had the cure for cancer in it. She decided to take advantage of her occult which is too involved in the luciferian movement also known as illuminati. She then outcasted me so all the families definitely supposed to have something have been capitilizing for a very very long time theif knows a thief if you can remember the facts i have been given you about Hades and Aryans as well as the anti-zulu nation. This caused africans to treat her like a queen hundreds of thousands of dollars and millions of dollars of my money has been circling all around me all for her to fulfill he dire need to sacrifice me because i was made a king and it was seen as an ultimate sacrifice. Then too i was lied on by females and blown off but i’m going to expose illuminati’s black agenda in great detail with my letter i have for obama then too the arrogant white nazis of america plus i haven’t forgotten the arrogant white nazis with a tan in iraq iran so on and so forth. I had to revise the cure then too i have vaccines for such things i’ve spoke about….. But i appreciate the coolness within the “room”. You all be blessed.
but i have a lightskinned father whom allows himself to brainwash and also wanted to be the white man all the years of his youth and too in the military so for me to be made king at a young age made act upon his stupid goals regarding murdering and living someone else’s life…. To this day he thinks things i’ve accomplished are nothing compared to his lightskinnedness. That’s between them i’m tired of the nonsense they most likely imploded the building to take up time to find places to live where the main substances to the cures are plentiful. Any whoo like i said many don’t come here to help they come here to enjoy the onslaught of innocent people the majority of whom are native americans. Sorry for the long talk but it is what it is. I too would love to see zionist mafia be imprisoned for they have a little too much love for those that can’t read most especially the selfish readers.
To be blunt, you’re simply full of it, Jim. You’re being contrary.
First of all, despite your unfounded implication, nobody that I know of is pushing the idea that nanothermite was used *exclusively* in the demolitions. Most likely, it was both conventional HE cutter charges and thermite (or in this case nanothermite) used in the demolitions.
Who knows, nanothermite may have been used only in the exterior columns, for example, and/or other places where covertness and/or a lack of access would result in an inability to properly pre-condition the structure (for conventional HE charges) thus necessitating its use.
Since: (1) nobody knows for sure exactly how the nanothermite was used; and, (2) thermite demolitions as described in the (patent) literature don’t depend (at least to the first order) on “VOD” or burn rate, per se, your arguments regarding “detonation velocity” are nothing but a pointless distraction. And since I think you know better, I’ll call it as I see it – a disingenuous, pointless distraction. (And BTW, FYI, as any kid who’s ever experimented with M-80s and “quarter sticks” will tell you, you don’t need a brisant HE to destroy a concrete block).
The perpetrators, in doing their research, might have empirically discovered that the faster their mixture burned, the more efficient it was, *in their particular mode of application* (i.e., instead of 5 lbs per cut structural member, maybe they could get away with 3 lbs. by using nanothermite). Or they may have discovered that by pressing it into shaped blocks, and igniting it in multiple spots, it burned so fast and delivered the energy to the target so fast that they didn’t need a potentially forensically embarrassing case to hold it.
You also claim (or someone you’re referring to claims) that:
“Thermites are energetic materials, which do not release gaseous species when they decompose. However, explosives can be blended in thermites to give them blasting properties, which implies that, unless supplemented with explosives, nanothermites are not explosive.”
First of all, that’s incorrect as stated. Many thermites do produce some gas when they burn, including simple Al + Fe304 mixtures. This is because the temperatures are high enough to evaporate some of the products. And this may be enough to do the work that needs to be done. Since, once again, we do not know exactly how the nanothermite was used, noobody can make any implication that the amout of gas would’ve been insufficient.
The bottom line is that a high energy incendiary compound was found in the dust, it shouldn’t have been there, and it implies a controlled demolition.
I hope that clears things up.
You obviously have not been paying attention. The use of nanothermite is supposed to be the “smoking gun” of 9/11. But it has neither the gas expanding potential of bona fide explosives nor the rapid rate of detonation that would be required to even shatter concrete, much less steel. If you like whistling in the dark, then, by all means, continue to believe whatever you want. I wouldn’t expect scientific search to affect your thinking, especially when we are dealing with something akin to a religious dogma about 9/11. It cannot perform the feats attributed to it.
You behave as if Nelson didn’t write what he did: “nobody that I know of is pushing the idea that nanothermite was used *exclusively* in the demolitions. Most likely, it was both conventional HE cutter charges and thermite (or in this case nanothermite) used in the demolitions.”
Understand? No one thinks nanothermite was the sole component (Steven Jones and Richard Gage never say that, instead they go on at length about how they believe it was probably just part of an explosive witches brew, but that it was the one part of that brew that they could identify in the dust). But you know that. You know that is not what they postulate. Expert in logic that you are do you expect people to not hold you to it when you stray so irresponsibly from it.
Perhaps nanothermite was used to fizz away the structural metal releasing that white smoke we saw for a couple of hours, so that the high explosives had less to do thus lowering the overall sound so it seemed less demolition like. Who knows?
You obviously did not read (or understand) what I wrote.
That nanothermite was used exclusively in the demolitions is a strawman argument. How do you know that conventional HE was not used as well as nanothermite?
Listen, I explained this very carefully. When I asked Steve Jones if nanothermite could blow apart the buildings, pulverize concrete, and shatter steel, he told me that it could. As it is commonly understood in the 9/11 Truth community, it can do those things. They do occasionally grudgingly concede that it might have been combined with other explosives–but that it an “add on”. It is not a high explosive, it cannot pulverize concrete, and it cannot shatter steel. I don’t know how much you know about the 9/11 Truth community, but what Steve told me in June 2006 is a dogma of 9/11 research. The problem is that it is false, provably false, and not even physically possible. And you will notice that proponents of nanothermite are not willing to give ground. THIS NEEDS TO BE MADE VERY CLEAR.
You’re misrepresenting what Steven Jones said. He always said it was part of the picture, the part they could identify, but not the whole picture. What is wrong with you?
Well, he was my co-chair. I have watched his presentations and studied his work. Just how many conversations have you had with Steve Jones? It sounds to me as though you are conceding my points without wanting to acknowledge that you are doing that. You should read this article more carefully. And why would Dwain Deets, for example, express his appreciation for our clarification if it were not long overdue? Give this a little more thought. Did you miss this part:
“In his efforts to inform prominent researchers about his discoveries, Mark wrote to Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and others. Dwain Deets, the former Chief of Research Engineering and Director for Aeronautical Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, wrote to Mark and told him that he had listened to our interview on “The Real Deal” and said: “Excellent interview. A step toward trimming back claims that overshoot the evidence.” He also sent a diagram illustrating certain detonation velocities as well as the sonic (speed of sound) velocities in various materials. Thus, for a high explosive to significantly fragment a material, its detonation velocity has to be greater than the speed of sound in that material, which requires a detonation velocity of at least 3,200 m/s to fragment concrete and 6,100 m/s to fragment steel–far beyond 895 m/s for nanothermite.”
Your suggestion that Steve may have “misspoken” makes you come across like Nixon’s press secretary! How can a blunder of this magnitude have been committed and then allowed to stand from the very group that claims the high ground as the true practitioners of the “scientific method” when they have so grossly exaggerated their their product? They have not acted like responsible scientists but like used-car salesmen! They have repeatedly ignored, dismissed, and even ridiculed those who took exception to their stance, even when there have been multiple indications that something was wrong (from the Rock Creek Press piece to the earlier article, “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?” and as long ago as my critique of Steve’s work when he was talking about barium nitrate).
Look at Kevin Ryan’s response to “The Nanothermite Challenge”? If you condone their stance, then your standards for scientific integrity differ from mine. This is a “Truth” movement, not a pseudo-truth or a pretend-truth or a lets-make-up-a-story-to-market-to-the-public-truth. I am sorry, but your attempt (below) to excuse the inexcusable only serves to underline their misconduct here. And your claim that nanothermite has the same “energy denisty” as a high explosive is ridiculous. Nanothermite does not even have the rapid gas expansion properties of explosives–not to mention that its detonation rate is about 13% that of TNT! Did you even READ what Mark and I have explained here? I find it beyond belief that you are serving as some kind of shill for a group that has discredited itself. You are clearly posting on their behalf, but in the process you are impugning your own personal integrity.
Regardless of whether Steve Jones et al. may have misspoken regarding the “explosive” properties of the nanothermite found in the dust, it’s still a highly energetic incendiary, it still played a role in the demolitions, and thus it’s still a “smoking gun” of criminality with regard to the “collapses” of the towers, no?
That said, taking your statements at face value and assuming that he really did misspeak, then I guess I question your judgment to publicly air “dirty laundry” in such a way as to publicly denigrate him.
Let’s face it, not everyone is 100 correct on everything, all the time; not you, not me, not Steve Jones. If we are all on the same team, working toward the same goal, personally I don’t think it’s helpful or even appropriate to argue among ourselves publicly (as “truthers”) about details that are still speculative.
Anyway, since the nanothermite has an energy density comparable to that of high explosives, I disagree with your position that Jones overstated anything. Moreover, his nanothermite paper claims that there was an organic material present in the red chips, right? And any organic material present would act as a substrate for gas generation which could be tailored to get the blast effect the perpetrators wanted.
BTW with regard to the burn rate of 895 m/sec that you mentioned, is that also the burn rate when the nanothermite is confined? Is that also the burn rate when an unknown organic binder is added?
I know that some nanothermites have the property that their “burn rates” are a function of pressure, increasing as the pressure increases. Some of them would appear to be suitable as primary explosives. How do we know what the organic material was in the red chips and how do we know it didn’t have the effect of increasing the burn rate? What you’re doing is speculating about his speculation and making a big deal about it, to the detriment of the “truth movement”, IMO.
Jim Fetzer
July 19, 2011 – (Edit)
Your suggestion that Steve may have “misspoken” makes you come across like Nixon’s press secretary! How can a blunder of this magnitude have been committed and then allowed to stand from the very group that claims the high ground as the true practitioners of the “scientific method” when they have so grossly exaggerated their their product? They have not acted like responsible scientists but like used-car salesmen! They have repeatedly ignored, dismissed, and even ridiculed those who took exception to their stance, even when there have been multiple indications that something was wrong (from the Rock Creek Press piece to the earlier article, “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?” and as long ago as my critique of Steve’s work when he was talking about barium nitrate.
Look at Kevin Ryan’s response to “The Nanothermite Challenge”? If you condone their stance, then your standards for scientific integrity differ from mine. This is a “Truth” movement, not a pseudo-truth or a pretend-truth or a lets-make-up-a-story-to-market-to-the-public-truth. I am sorry, but your attempt (below) to excuse the inexcusable only serves to underline their misconduct here. And your claim that nanothermite has the same “energy denisty” as a high explosive is ridiculous. Nanothermite does not even have the rapid gas expansion properties of explosives–not to mention that its detonation rate is about 13% that of TNT! Did you even READ what Mark and I have explained here? I find it beyond belief that you are serving as some kind of shill for a group that has discredited itself. You are clearly posting on their behalf, but in the process you are impugning your own personal integrity.
“Your suggestion that Steve may have “misspoken” makes you come across like Nixon’s press secretary! How can a blunder of this magnitude have been committed and then allowed to stand from the very group that claims the high ground as the true practitioners of the “scientific method” when they have so grossly exaggerated their their product?
They have not acted like responsible scientists but like used-car salesmen!”
############################################
Bullshit. By “misspoken”, I merely meant speculation beyond what could be immediately “proven”. It implies neither dishonesty nor incompetence. It’s just part of being human.
#######################################
They have repeatedly ignored, dismissed, and even ridiculed those who took exception to their stance, even when there have been multiple indications that something was wrong (from the Rock Creek Press piece to the earlier article, “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?” and as long ago as my critique of Steve’s work when he was talking about barium nitrate. Look at Kevin Ryan’s response to “The Nanothermite Challenge”? If you condone their stance, then your standards for scientific integrity differ from mine. This is a “Truth” movement, not a pseudo-truth or a pretend-truth or a lets-make-up-a-story-to-market-to-the-public-truth. I am sorry, but your attempt (below) to excuse the inexcusable only serves to underline their misconduct here.
###########################################
Sorry Jimmy, but if there’s any “misconduct” here, it’s yours. The nanothermite, without doubt played a significant role in the demolitions of the towers, and despite your efforts to obfuscate, that’s the important point.
##############################################
And your claim that nanothermite has the same “energy denisty” as a high explosive is ridiculous. Nanothermite does not even have the rapid gas expansion properties of explosives–not to mention that its detonation rate is about 13% that of TNT! Did you even READ what Mark and I have explained here?
###################################################
ROTFLMAO! Well I can see you’re neither an engineer, physicist or chemist! If you don’t understand what the phrase “energy density” means, then you really have no business arguing about it, do you?
On a weight basis, Al + Fe2O3 thermite has about the same energy content (heat of reaction)as TNT (detonation energy), i.e., about 950 vs 1000 cal/gm. On a volume basis, however, the thermite, being a much more dense material, has more than twice the energy density of TNT. Thus for a given volume of material, the thermite actually has the *potential* to do more work on a target than TNT.
As I said previously (but you ignored) with this much energy available, the perpetrators could adjust the ingredients, especially the amount of a gas generating substrate, to get the blast effect they wanted. Sometimes making a small change in the composition of a material can dramatically change the way it behaves.
Case in point: If you take potassium chlorate, an oxidiser, and mix it with an “organic substance”, say sugar, you end up with an energetic, fast burning powder. If you then take the potassium chlorate and mix it with a different organic substance, say wax, it has about the same energy density, and burns in a similar way, but now, it will actually detonates at 3000 m/sec if properly initiated. Do you see how sometimes a small change in the composition can make for a drastic change in performance?
If you take nanothermite and add a gas producing substrate and confine it, the burn rate might go up significantly.
It’s clear you don’t know anything about explosives, Jimmy.
Yes, the TNT would have more brisance, but nanothermite, even at 895 m/sec could demolish concrete.
http://www.youtube(dot)com/watch?v=aTs8JHmK174&feature=related
Tell me how flash powder, a fast burning low explosive similar to thermite, was able to disintegrate 4 concrete blocks into small fragments and dust. Tell me, Jimmy.
#########################################
I find it beyond belief that you are serving as some kind of shill for a group that has discredited itself. You are clearly posting on their behalf, but in the process you are impugning your own personal integrity
###########################################
I find it beyond belief thay you’re pretending to know something about the subject matter. You’re a charlatan.You know NOTHING about explosives.
“Your suggestion that Steve may have “misspoken” makes you come across like Nixon’s press secretary! How can a blunder of this magnitude have been committed and then allowed to stand from the very group that claims the high ground as the true practitioners of the “scientific method” when they have so grossly exaggerated their their product?
They have not acted like responsible scientists but like used-car salesmen!”
############################################
Bullshit. By “misspoken”, I merely meant speculation beyond what could be immediately “proven”. It implies neither dishonesty nor incompetence. It’s just part of being human.
#######################################
They have repeatedly ignored, dismissed, and even ridiculed those who took exception to their stance, even when there have been multiple indications that something was wrong (from the Rock Creek Press piece to the earlier article, “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?” and as long ago as my critique of Steve’s work when he was talking about barium nitrate. Look at Kevin Ryan’s response to “The Nanothermite Challenge”? If you condone their stance, then your standards for scientific integrity differ from mine. This is a “Truth” movement, not a pseudo-truth or a pretend-truth or a lets-make-up-a-story-to-market-to-the-public-truth. I am sorry, but your attempt (below) to excuse the inexcusable only serves to underline their misconduct here.
###########################################
Sorry Jimmy, but if there’s any “misconduct” here, it’s yours. The nanothermite, without doubt played a significant role in the demolitions of the towers, and despite your efforts to obfuscate, that’s the important point.
##############################################
And your claim that nanothermite has the same “energy denisty” as a high explosive is ridiculous. Nanothermite does not even have the rapid gas expansion properties of explosives–not to mention that its detonation rate is about 13% that of TNT! Did you even READ what Mark and I have explained here?
###################################################
ROTFLMAO! Well I can see you’re neither an engineer, physicist or chemist! If you don’t understand what the phrase “energy density” means, then you really have no business arguing about it, do you?
On a weight basis, Al + Fe2O3 thermite has about the same energy content (heat of reaction)as TNT (detonation energy), i.e., about 950 vs 1000 cal/gm. On a volume basis, however, the thermite, being a much more dense material, has more than twice the energy density of TNT. Thus for a given volume of material, the thermite actually has the *potential* to do more work on a target than TNT.
As I said previously (but you ignored) with this much energy available, the perpetrators could adjust the ingredients, especially the amount of a gas generating substrate, to get the blast effect they wanted. Sometimes making a small change in the composition of a material can dramatically change the way it behaves.
Case in point: If you take potassium chlorate, an oxidiser, and mix it with an “organic substance”, say sugar, you end up with an energetic, fast burning powder. If you then take the potassium chlorate and mix it with a different organic substance, say wax, it has about the same energy density, and burns in a similar way, but now, it will actually detonates at 3000 m/sec if properly initiated. Do you see how sometimes a small change in the composition can make for a drastic change in performance?
If you take nanothermite and add a gas producing substrate and confine it, the burn rate might go up significantly.
It’s clear you don’t know anything about explosives, Jimmy.
Yes, the TNT would have more brisance, but nanothermite, even at 895 m/sec could demolish concrete.
Do a youtube search for “200g VS 6 Cinder Blocks Explosion” and watch the video.
Tell me how flash powder, a fast burning low explosive similar to thermite, was able to disintegrate 4 concrete blocks into small fragments and dust. Tell me, Jimmy.
#########################################
I find it beyond belief that you are serving as some kind of shill for a group that has discredited itself. You are clearly posting on their behalf, but in the process you are impugning your own personal integrity
###########################################
I find it beyond belief thay you’re pretending to know something about the subject matter. You’re a charlatan.You know NOTHING about explosives.
FURTHER THOUGHT:
Jim Fetzer
22 July 2011
In case you haven’t noticed, our research is based upon peer-reviewed studies to begin with. If you think we have something wrong, then prove it. And trading in unspecified forms of “flash powder” doesn’t cut it–even if that stuff is enough to destroy concrete. Nanothermite cannot.
all i got to say is that the conversation is going where it supposed to And also that nanotheromite is one hell of a weapon…. You all have fun cause I see now it’s no longer about playing person looking for a better understanding and is actually blatantly about what it has been about the whole while. The eastern leaders trying to take over america. While ganging up on india and laughing caucasians and russians. I almost want to bust out laughing cause i can see now the split in this world war III we are currently involved in. Definitely world war III better than armageddon being that the media tyrant is under investigation so that means discussions about such a powerful weapon is only them thinking out loud asking more who questions then why which in it’s self screams guilt. i’ll let you all have this being that i get the understanding of the exactly why 9/11 occurred is good enough for delivering a time for simple rehtoric if not discussion. But it has reached a topic based on weaponry if not military arms. With mentioning of peolple claiming religious entity being dismayed and called out at the same time. Some are in most extreme trouble with all the question asking as if someone is supposed to respect an enclosed sactuarary when many fly from place to place like nothing let alone are willing to exemplify a muslim type of martyrdom the first martyr was a christian one day they will learn to like each other without looking to destroy anything and everything to play God sent. Peace out!!
The most logical thing to do is to round up every perp that most of us would agree upon. Waterboard ‘em until we get more names and the truth. If a few of them die, who cares? Their lives are not worth even one of the millions they’ve killed. Besides, it saves the cost of a trial. Torture….it’s the new American way!
Yes–and then, in accordance with the enlightened thinking of many who are posting here, we don’t have to bother with science or truth or actually understanding any aspect of 9/11. We can give the guilty bastards “a fair trial” before we take them out and hang ‘em! THAT’s “the American way”!
Any idea when you geniuses will come to a 100% bona fide conclusion Jim? A few years maybe? And then these guilty bastards can drag a trial out until they’re dead? Another thing we can’t afford. And we need the trees for better things. I think all of this is moot as I don’t think we have long until martial law. It’s just a matter of months. There’s not much left for the vultures to pick off the carcass of the USA.
Twenty years ago I would have agreed with you Jim. I admire your idealism. I was an Eagle Scout when I was a kid and retained my own idealism until my mid thirties. Then I woke up to the real way the world runs–by chance, as some might say. I’m afraid your idealism is misplaced in this case.
Bruce, there is only so much any one or few of us can do. In my opinion, but for this myth of nanothermite, we would be much farther along in our understanding of how all of this was done. It has less to do with idealism than with science. Political forces may make it impossible to prosecute those who were responsible. But if we continue to study what happened and how it was done, we will know more and be in a better position to pursue it. Do you think none of us should do anything unless we can do everything? Doesn’t the truth matter in this case?
Richard Gage:
“Ordinary thermite burns quickly and can melt through steel, but it is not explosive. Nanothermite, however, can be formulated as a high explosive. It is stable when wet and can be applied like paint.”
David Ray Griffin:
“What could have produced this force? According to NIST, as we saw earlier, there were only three causal factors in the collapse of the Twin Towers: the airplane impacts, the fires, and gravitational attraction. The airplane impacts had occurred 56 minutes (South Tower) and 102 minutes (North Tower) earlier, and gravitational attraction pulls things straight downward. Fire could, to be sure, produce horizontal ejections by causing jet fuel to explode, but the jet fuel had, NIST pointed out, burned up within “a few minutes.”86 Therefore, although NIST admitted that these horizontal ejections occurred, it suggested no energy source to explain them.
“High explosives, such as RDX or nanothermite, could explain these horizontal ejections. According to NIST, however, explosives did not contribute to the destruction of the Twin Towers. Those who accept NIST’s account must, therefore, regard these horizontal ejections as constituting yet another miracle.”
These are the dominant views within the 9/11 Truth community. Even after Mark wrote to them and told they what he had discovered, Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin wrote back and told him:
On July 7, 2011, Hightower received emails from both David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage. Gage wrote back that “it [nanothermite] should not be called a ‘high’ explosive”. Griffin made a similar suggestion and, in reply, Mark observed that calling it simply “an explosive” would convey to most members of the public that it is “a high explosive” or, given it’s invocation by the “hard evidence” crowd, at least, has the ability to disintegrate concrete and even steel. Since that is the impression that has been indelibly implanted in the consciousness of the public, within and without the 9/11 Truth movement, until that claim is corrected, the 9/11 Truth movement will be based upon a provably false theory.
Griffin himself, of course, is not a scientist and is relying upon the work of Jones, Ryan, and others. But when he wrote back, “We are happy with our formulation, that it can be tailored to work as an incendiary or [as] an explosive. We cannot be responsible for the fact that many people may equate ‘explosive’ with ‘high explosive’”, his answer raised a number of rather disturbing questions about the ethical implications of allowing these enormously misleading impressions to linger:
(1) Will Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth inform the public that it has misrepresented the potential for “explosive nanothermite”?; and,
(2) If nanothermite only exists as a low explosive, that it cannot “hold the key” to the destruction of the Twin Towers, as has been claimed?; and,
(3) Will A&E admit that nanothermite cannot possibly be the “smoking gun” of 9/11 research, when the hard evidence contradicts that claim?
Jim,,,
I don’t pretend to understand all the games that are being played concerning 9-11, and am not making accusations as I don’t have proof of anyone’s complicity.
What is apparent to me about 9-11 (in part after 50+ years of cutting and welding steel) is that the official explanation is provably false, so another provable explanation is required.
For example, not included in the official explanation is the origin of the nanothermite residual. From my reading of your above article and posts however, there seems to be a type of disconnect where nanothermite is concerned. No one that I have read/heard is claiming that nanothermite or similar formulations is solely responsible for destroying the NYC buildings of 9-11–just that it was inexplicably found in the 9-11 dust immediately after that date, and before official demolitions took place. Certainly, any forensics regarding that day would have to take that into account and provide an explanation for the residue, not to mention explanations for all of the molten iron/steel and obviously-cut columns and beams.
Question: Do you deny the proof/claims of nano-thermite in the dust samples, and if you do not deny the residue, what is your explanation for it, if not for demolition purposes (not necessarily as an explosive let alone the sole explosive)?
Question: In discounting the claims of nanothermite, you and others claim data concerning the velocity of the nanothermite, yet I haven’t seen the basis for your claims. Since nanothermite formulations are many and can be vastly different from regular thermite formulations, and was only secretly formulated/produced at US Natl. labs, please provide your mil-spec data sources for the specific formulation and its performance, would you please?
I don’t want to get into a pissing contest with you, but I agree with Edgar Hull above when he says “911 truth shot massive holes in the official conspiracy theory from the beginning and should have kept at it, shifting the burden of proof to the government. Instead we are fighting each other over who ,what ,where, when and now HOW for christ sakes.”
Let’s get on with serious investigations, and quit the circular firing squad nonsense, so we can unite behind a new investigation and get some real answers instead of speculative crap. How about it?
locoto
locojhon, Well, I agree that we have blown the official account out of the water. See “Why doubt 9/11?”, http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46, for example.
Showing how it was NOT done is not the same thing as showing how it WAS done. Doing the first does not preclude doing the second. Some of us want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
All the science a simpleton like me needs to know is why the heck did the media never mention building 7???? In fact I didn’t find out about 7 until about a year or so ago after discovering alternative news sites. Most Americans still don’t know about 7. If it was not a cover up surely the media would have reported on it. It’s not like it was insignificant event, a fifty story building tumbling down hours after the attacks. Obvious foul play if u ask me…. Maybe Larry Silverstein called rupert Murdoch and asked him not to report on it???
Fred, you raise an excellent question. See http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ , for example. Thanks.
A Compilation Of Hazard and Test Data For Pyrotechnic Compositions. F. L.
Mclntyre, Report ARLCD-TR-80047, October 1980, NTIS AD 096248. 390 pages.
“This report is a compilation of parametric, stability, sensitivity and
output data on selected pyrotechnic compositions derived from hazards
evaluation and classification testing. This report provides a readily
accessible source of data for some 180 pyrotechnic compositions.”
“An accident survey was conducted to identify primary hazards and
cause/effect relationships associated with pyrotechnic operations during
development, manufacturing, transportation and thermally ultimate use.
“There were 18% [103] explosions and 5% [27] accidents that transition
from either a fire to an explosion or multiple explosions. As expected,
the majority of the incidents were fires.
The Significant factor here is that 23% of the incidents RESULTED IN
SOME FORM OF AN EXPLOSION, since pyrotechnic compositions are not
normally considered to be explosive in nature.” [Emphasis added.]
Of interest were the TNT equivalence (Hi Explosive equivalence) tests.
Of the six compositions used for producing sound two were tested for TNT
Equivalence with the following results: Air Blast Simulator Mixture, as
used in the M74A1 and M74 Simulator. [Aluminum flake 9%, Black Powder
91%] TNT Equivalence was found to be 45%. Detonation Simulator Mixture,
use: the infamous M80. [************] TNT equivalence 80%. It should be
noted that; “The M80 fire cracker mixture is no longer manufactured but
is reported along with the test data BECAUSE OF SEVERAL CATASTROPHIC
ACCIDENTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED.” [Emphasis added.]
“Critical Height” and “Critical Diameter” were also measured. “In the
critical height test the “Critical height to explosion data are reported
as the greatest material height in a given container diameter which did
not result in transition from burning to an” explosion.
Critical diameter tests the sample material using C4 as an explosive
donor, to determine the minimum diameter required to induce a explosive
reaction.
The critical Diameter for the M80 composition was found to be 0.01
meters [4 inches!!!]. and the Critical Height was measured as being
3.96cm. [1.5 inches!!!] [Fools rush in where angles fear to tread.]
Of the photoflash mixtures tested, TNT Equivalence of: 30-36-50% were
measured. And even closer to homer a Yellow Star Mixture [Magnesium 18%,
Barium Nitrate 17%, Strontium Nitrate 16%, Potassium Perchlorate 17%,
Sodium Oxalate 17%, and HCB 12%] when tested:
“indicated that this mix would detonate and an explosive equivalence (as
compared to TNT) was greater then 50% in a contained vessel ***” This
mixture was also found to be sensitive to friction and impact.
——-
Propagation Rates In Thermally Ignited Pyrotechnic Compositions. Richard W.
Collett, Tech Report ARLCD-TR-77049, August 1978, NTIS ADA060809.
“Work was performed to determine the propagation rates in loose,
granular confined pyrotechnic compositions when initiated thermally.
Representative materials included flash, igniter and flare compositions.”
All compositions were tested confined in steel pipe 48″ long by 2″id.
both ends of which were sealed with heavy end caps. An igniter pack
placed in the bottom of the column was used for thermal ignition.
Conclusions: “All of the compositions tested developed fast reactions
which could cause explosions and be extremely hazardous ***. The
reactions are therefore all classed as detonative.” [Emphasis added.]
Of the four basic compositions tested, PFP-555 [Aluminum 15u 40.0%,
Barium nitrate 140u 30.0%, and Potassium perchlorate 20u 30.0%] “can
develop either a low-velocity or high-velocity detonation when
thermally ignited. Test 1- 920 meters/sec. Test 2- 546 meters/sec.”
Explosive Power of Pyrotechnic Compositions. 1.M. Jenkins, Et. All,
19th Explosives Safety Seminar, Calif. 1980 Page 77 &ff.
“Various pyrotechnic compositions were assessed in three experiments:
1-To measure and assess the explosive power from various
initiating stimuli.
2-To measure the explosive power expressed in terms of the
equivalent mass of TNT per unit mass.
3-The likelihood and effect of sympathetic initiation in a
practical storage situation.”
Three initiating stimuli were used: 1/fuzehead 2/electric detonator,
and 3/a detonator boosted with a tetryl pellet. The composition being
placed in a paper mache pot, with the initiator being placed at the
geometric center of the charge mass.
Composition #11: Photoflash [40/60 Aluminum/Potassium Perchlorate] when
ignited by source number three, resulted in an “equivalent mass
approximation kg. TNT per unit mass” of 0.42. More rigorous testing
using piezo-electric pressure transducers to measure air blast and
other experiments using foil gauges raised the TNT equivalence to 50%.
———
TNT Equivalencies of Black Powder. Volume 1: Management Summary and
Technical Discussion, H.S. Napadensk and J.J. Swatosh Jr., lTIRJ6265-3,
Sept. 1972, NTIS ADA-044444. 69 pages + vii.
“Black powder charges ranging in weight from 8 to 150 pounds were
evaluated under different levels of confinement. The TNT equivalence
for the final product were found to range between zero to 43% for
impulse and zero to 24% for pressure, depending upon the level of
confinement, the weight of explosive and booster, and the distance
form the explosion.”
The generally quoted figure for the detonation velocity of BP is 400
meters/sec. However A.F. Belyaev and RKh. Kurbangalina; Russ. J. Phy-
s.Chem. 38:309-310,1964, as quoted in the LLNL Explosives Handbook,
URCL-52997, provide the following figures Density g/cm3 appx. 0.7, det
velocity appx. 1.3 km/cm3, 1.35 km/sec.
Mark will be better positioned to evaluate your post than I, but it appears to me to support our position.
Jimmy, do a youtube search for “200g VS 6 Cinder Blocks Explosion” and get back to me.
Tell me how 7 ounces of a pyrotechnic mixture of potassium perchlorate and aluminum powder can completely destroy 160 lbs of concrete (4 blocks) and significantly damage another 80 lbs (2 blocks).
A response to Nelson_2008
Although the cited reference is very interesting with a lot of good information in it, no where in what you quoted is there any reference to thermite. You have made the point that materials categorized as pyrotechnics can be explosive. But in the places in what you have quoted where detonation velocities are given, they are rather low, compared to conventional high explosives.
Note references to 920 m/s, 546 m/s, and 1,350 m/s, and compare this to the detonation velocity of 6,900 m/s for TNT or 8,750 m/s for RDX.
The actual quotes from your post are below.
“can develop either a low-velocity or high-velocity detonation when thermally ignited. Test 1- 920 meters/sec. Test 2- 546 meters/sec.”
“as quoted in the LLNL Explosives Handbook, URCL-52997, provide the following figures Density g/cm3 appx. 0.7, det velocity appx. 1.3 km/cm3, 1.35 km/sec.”
“Tell me how 7 ounces of a pyrotechnic mixture of potassium perchlorate and aluminum powder can completely destroy 160 lbs of concrete (4 blocks) and significantly damage another 80 lbs (2 blocks).”
A mixture of potassium perchlorate and aluminum powder is not thermite. Even if it were in the thermite category, it is not iron oxide/aluminum thermite, which is what is proposed as a causative agent for WTC destruction.
Pedantry. That’s what you and Jim are all about. You’re just being contrary. You’re grasping at straws.
The point is that pyrotechnic materials with burn rates much lower than TNT (and I won’t go into the fact that the VOD of TNT itself is not a constant but dependent on things like density, charge diameter, etc.), can nevertheless have an appreciable blast effectiveness; they can do significant damage, almost as much as TNT. And the youtube video proves it.
Flash powder is very similar to thermite in many ways: it’s a physical mixture of a fuel (aluminum) and an oxidiser; it doesn’t produce a lot of gas; it’s generally considered to deflagrate (burn) rather than detonate. They both have comparable energy densities, and yet, tests show it’s 80% as effective as TNT.
Really the difference between flash powder and thermite boils down to the choice of oxidiser, that’s all. They both have comparable energy densities, they both use aluminum as fuel, (and other ingredients can be added to the thermite to produce more gas).
Lastly, the fine particle size of the nanothermite would tend to make it burn faster than the flash powder seen in the video, and thus it’s reasonable to expect even better performance.
So what’s your argument, Mark? The fact is you have no argument. Your speculating, just like Steve Jones, the only difference is that his speculation is more reasonable.
WHY IT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO OVERSELL “EXPLOSIVE NANOTHERMITE”
I am struck by the disconnect between what is commonly portrayed as the AE911Truth position on nanothermite and what the lead author of the April 2009 nanothermite paper Niels Harrit said in his July 2009 interview on Russia Today.
First refer to the related article for the AE911Truth position on nanothermite.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/09/24/architects-engineers-for-911-truth-hit-the-american-mainstream/
And consider these two quotes from it.
“And according to a newly published scientific article, researchers found Nano-Thermite explosive in the rubble of WTC collapsed buildings that couldn’t have come from the planes. They believe large amounts of explosives were placed in the buildings in advance.”
“Niels Harrit and eight other researchers conclude in this article that it was Nano-Thermite that caused these buildings to collapse.”
Now compare this to what Niels Harrit actually said in his July 2009 interview with Russia Today.
http://rt.com/usa/news/did-nano-thermite-take-down-the-wtc/
“There is very solid evidence for that some thermite has been used for melting the steel beams. We should not, I do not know, we do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very very possible that different varieties was used and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too in abundance.” When asked what he meant by the phrase,“in abundance,” he said “tons, hundred tons, many many many tons.”
Notice that he is more sure that conventional explosives were used (in abundance) than he is about the thermite they found in the dust and what role it played.
In my interview with Jim Fetzer on The Real Deal of July 6, 2011, I presented a calculation of the quantity of conventional explosives that would have been required to bring down a WTC Twin Tower, and I got values on the order of hundreds of tons in agreement with Niels Harrit’s estimate.
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/
My presentation from the interview can be viewed and/or downloaded from here
http://www.scribd.com/tmhightower
AE911Truth is promoting the nanothermite theory as the “smoking gun” of 9/11 and calling it a high explosive.
If there IS an investigation, and this DOES go to court at some point, on the “strength” of nanothermite as “hard evidence” of controlled demolition by explosives of the WTC, and it is shown to the court (by the other side) that nanothermite is at best a very low explosive and could not have destroyed the Towers in a matter of seconds, then the entire case will be dismissed, and a legal precedent may be set for future efforts made by others.
This is the danger of promoting a false theory, or of overselling a weak hypothesis to millions of people.
Mark
thanks
g
What’s wrong with you, Truthman? You have been so reasonable up to this point. Now you are offering bizarre remarks about the caliber of the shots that killed JFK AS THOUGH THEY MADE NO DIFFERENCE? You might want to step back and ask how we can establish a chain of evidence from the shooters to their sponsors if we can’t establish who shot Jack using specific weapons. I am more than a bit taken aback by your sudden lurch into mental mush. You can do much better.
By your own argument, Jim, the nanothermite found in the World Trade Center dust should be traced to its source to discover the sponsors of the attack. The red/gray chips weren’t made in a cave in Afghanistan. You can’t even get ultra-fine-grained aluminum except from the Naval Surface Warfare Center.
I invite you to demonstrate the depth of your commitment to 9/11 truth and justice by responding fully to the following requests for admissions:
1. Admit or deny that nanothermite (gas-generating or not) has no business being in the World Trade Center buildings or dust. (Y/N)
2. Admit or deny that the presence of nanothermite in the World Trade Center dust supports the call for a new, legitimate investigation with subpoena power, one that will follow the evidence wherever it leads. (Y/N)
3. Admit or deny that if scientific truth were enough to obtain such an investigation, we would have obtained one a long time ago. (Y/N)
4. Admit or deny that you and others who deny the importance of nanothermite could have, this entire time, have paid for or conducted your own studies of the dust, looking for the residue of whatever explosive you wanted to look for, for less than $1000. (Y/N)
5. Admit or deny that you have not lifted a finger to engage in any such analysis of the dust. (Y/N)
6. Admit or deny that the nitpicking or whatever you want to call it, in which you and Mark are engaged, and have no positive outcome benefiting the 9/11 truth movement as a whole. (Y/N)
I have no further questions for this witness.
ResearchGuy asks several (Y/N) questions, some of which are relevant, some not. As one of
my friends has written to me, how can we–the 9/11 Truth movement–obtain subpoena power
for an inquiry from the government when it is the government–with a little help from the
Mossad–who appears to have been responsible? Here are some “admit or deny” questions for
ResearchGuy:
(1) Admit or deny that nanothermite has a detonation velocity of 895 m/s. (Y/N)
(2) Admit or deny that the velocity necessary to destroy concrete is 3,200 m/s. (Y/N)
(3) Admit or deny that the velocity necessary to destroy steel is 6,100 m/s. (Y/N)
(4) Admit or deny that 895 m/s is far below the 3,200 m/s required to destroy concrete.
(Y/N)
(5) Admit or deny that 895 m/s is far below the 6,100 m/s required to destroy steel. (Y/N)
(6) Admit or deny that nanothermite cannot have destroyed the concrete or the steel. (Y/N)
[NOTE: I have in fact supported Chuck Boldwyn in his efforts to obtain samples of the
dust from Steve Jones and encouraged Steve to send them to him when I encountered him
recently in Santa Clara at the CONSPIRACY CON. But no samples have been forthcoming.]
(7) Admit or deny that getting the explosive properties of the stuff alleged to hold the
the key to the destruction of the Twin Towers by the “hard evidence” group–namely,
nanothermite–is as non-trivial as a question could be in the 9/11 movement. (Y/N)
(8) Admit or deny that this question is as far from “nit-picking” as a question could be.
(Y/N)
(9) Admit or deny that the 9/11 Truth movement cannot be based upon a false theory. (Y/N)
Look, they made an important discovery: they found an energetic incendiary material present in the dust. It shouldn’t have found there, and it’s damning. That’s the important thing here.
And obviously nothing is going to “go to trial” without an investigation, btw. The point is to get an investigation started in some venue somewhere.
And what are you really on about anyway? Are you going to claim that the buildings “collapsed” due to fire?
If Harrit et al. are “guilty” of anything, they did some speculating. So what?
You’re going to jump all over them armed with nothing more than your unfounded, pedantical counterspeculation?
Gimme a break!
Since I am giving links to presentations and publications of mine, Nelson_2008, why don’t you do just the least bit of research of my views before you attack them. You are discrediting yourself by showing you have no idea what you are talking about. Try http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ for a start. OK?
Coming from a charlatan such as yourself, I’ll take that as a compliment, thanks.
BTW, genius, I’m still waiting for you to explain how 7 ounces of a relatively slow burning pyrotechnic mixture was able to completely destroy 160 lbs of concrete as per the youtube video I mentioned.
I’m sorry I really don’t mean to be so nasty to you, but I’m so utterly frustrated with in-fighting and provocateurs and propagandists and lack of progress…while economic collapse, martial law, WW3, etc., loom, that my patience is almost at an end.
You’ve got some kind of a petty personal squabble going on with the proponents of the nanothermite, so you’ve picked out what you think is a weak point in their (ambiguously stated) position, and you’re running with it, “9/11 Truth Movement” be damned. IOW, you’re willing to damage the “movement” to whatever extent necessary to satisfy your quest for personal “upsmanship”.
And you expect to be taken seriously?
So Nelson_2008 would rather have a false or grossly exaggerated theory of how it was done than having the false or exaggerated alternatives exposed to clear the way for sounder science? I am astonished at some of the attitudes expressed here. That nanothermite is not an explosive and cannot have pulverized the concrete or shattered the steel is not “a petty personal squabble”. I think Nelson_2008 is fantasizing. This is serious business, alas, and requires serious science.
Jim Fetzer said: “So Nelson_2008 would rather have a false or grossly exaggerated theory of how it was done than having the false or exaggerated alternatives exposed to clear the way for sounder science? I am astonished at some of the attitudes expressed here.”
##############################################
LOL! At least you’re funny if nothing else! BTW, I’m an engineer Jim, are you? I even have some hands on experience with pyrotechnics and explosives, do you? I’m not going to say I’m an “expert”, but I’m quite sure I have more knowledge of the subject matter than you do. And I find your pedantry “astonishing” under the circumstances.
Anyway, it’s already been established and generally accepted by reasonable people that: (1) an energetic incendiary material “nanothermite” was found in the dust; (2) that the material shoudn’t have been there; (3) that the material played a role in the demolitions of the buildings; (4) that a crime has been committed and covered up; (5) and that we need an investigation accordingly, right?
Do you dispute any of that?
#######################################################
Jim Fetzer said: “That nanothermite is not an explosive and cannot have pulverized the concrete or shattered the steel is not “a petty personal squabble”. I think Nelson_2008 is fantasizing. This is serious business, alas, and requires serious science.”
###########################################################
Well now, of course it’s an explosive. It burns fast (perhaps 895 m/sec, right?) it’s highly exothermic, it produces some gas (inherently – 2Al + Fe2O3 = 0.14 moles/gas per 100 grams of stoichiometric mixture, according to Sandia), and it can be tailored for blast effect by adding “organic material” to produce more gas.
Now, since you apparently want to argue over semantics: If anyone said that the nanothermite *shattered* steel, then they said something that was *probably* technically incorrect; they could’ve/should’ve said “cut” the steel, since we know that thermite can cut steel if properly used. Will that satisfy you?
And I’ve already provided you with evidence of what another aluminum based low-explosive, the relatively slow-burning material, flash powder, can do to concrete, right? You’re not going to dispute what you saw with your own eyes, are you?
Lastly, if you really are interested in “sounder science” (and not petty upsmanship) then let’s see the results of your own personal experiments with nanothermite. Let’s see your peer-reviewed papers re: nanothermite. Where are they?
Jim Fetzer
21 July 2011
Nelson_2008 loves to trade in straw men. Nanothermite does not have the rapid-gas-expansion properties of bona fide explosives. It also does not have the detonation velocity required to destroy concrete or steel. Yes, it could be combined with bona fide explosives to be explosive–but so could toothpaste!
It has been massively oversold to the 9/11 Truth community as having the ability to pulverize concrete, decimate steel, and blow the buildings apart. I can do none of those things. Calling for a peer-reviewed paper here is a feeble effort to undermine the results we have already proven and no one has refuted.
I showed you a video of 7 ounces of flash powder, a slow-burning, aluminum-based, pyrotechnic mixture whose reaction products are all solids @STP (and thus would be expected to have relatively small delta PV), yet it completely destroyed 160 lbs. of concrete.
And Army tests show it to be 80% as effective as TNT.
Now, how’s that possible? There must be something wrong with your “theory”, no? Yet
rather than admit it or offer any compelling counterargument, you accuse me of using “strawmen”! LOL!
By your theory, an atomic bomb (which also produces no “gas”), should be capable of doing hardly any damage, right?
I’ve proven you wrong, Jim. Accept it, and move on.
Is this supposed to be nanothermite of the kind under consideration here? Nothing is said to make that identification. Mark Hightower can say more, but your claims seem to be misleading to me. In particular, nanothermite, as we explain, is less than 13% as powerful as TNT. Something is wrong here, but it appears to have more to do with your disingenious comment than it does with our study. You appear to be going out of your way to be deceptive, Nelson_2008.
My “claims” seem “misleading” to you because you’re not very familiar with the subject matter. That’s not my fault.
You’re just throwing words around. You have to be careful how you define “powerful”.
If it was easy to determine how any particular explosive would act in any particular situation, we wouldn’t need to do tests, would we?
How effective an explosive is in any given situation may depend on lots of things, e.g: density, confinement, geometry, how it’s initiated, what’s mixed with it, standoff distance, etc.
I cited Army tests where flash powder was surprisingly found to be 80% as effective as TNT. By your defininition of “powerful”, that’s impossible.
Also, slight changes in composition can sometimes have dramatic effects on brisance or other characteristics. I already gave one example of a chlorate mixed with sugar vs. a chlorate mixed with wax and/or vaseline – a change in the physical property of the fuel component makes it a detonable high explosive. There are other examples.
To see how destructive nanothermite can be as an explosive in a particular situation, somebody actually needs to get some and test it out.
Thank, you
Peace
Things get lost in this sea of wordy opinions. My post, a long way up the screen, suggested that since nanothermite evidence was found in the dust, and since it is not deemed by known science to be explosive enough to give us the powderized results everyone has seen, why not probe into ways the thermite could have been exponentially explosively enhanced? I listed things not so far considered such as directed microwaves or capacitor discharge energy, both of which are not “space beams” but not necessarily in the published tech literature, and both are very much in military use today. I suggest these two possibilities because no traces of their use would ever be found in the dust samples. Not that any more evidence is needed to make the case. What “reasonable doubt” can their be after proving the towers disentegrated before our eyes, the Zionist connections to the money and motive trail, and the only arrests at the crime scene involved Mossad stooges? the tech reasons are not needed for conviction.
Your post is far more reasonable than many others here, but to implicate someone in a crime, you need a chain of evidence from the crime back to the culprits who perpetrated it. If we don’t even know how it was done, what ghost of a chance is there to trace it back to the perps? The answer is, “None!” So be so kind as to acknowledge that, if this crime is to eventually lead back to the perps– and we all have a very good idea who they are, as I explain in “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”, http://tinyurl.com/45ltba –but proving it is another matter entirely. That requires a scientific and forensic investigation, where some efforts that have been widely touted do not actually measure up scientifically and could not provide the foundation for bringing an indictment in a court of law. So those who care about “nailing the perps” have a vested interest in the adequacy of scientific inquiries into 9/11, where Mark and I are doing our best to make sure that the science that is cited in relation to these events is sound. That is our point.
Fetzer:
“but to implicate someone in a crime, you need a chain of evidence from the
crime back to the culprits who perpetrated it.”
-===-
Dear Mr. Fetzer,
Consider your Own words/positions, as documented.
Consider the Crime: Obstruction of Justice / destruction & withholding of evidence, etc
… regarding 9/11 incident.
Consider, as previously pointed out, the most immediate (OofJ) criminal
creeps to be processed, and the evidence uncovered via processing such
criminal obstacles out of the way, toward the proper due-processing required
to process evidence toward processing subject indictments regarding WhoDid911?
—-
Furthermore, consider Time of War, Obstruction of Justice, Espionage, Aiding The Enemy, etc …
Consider: Documented Doublespeak.
Consider juries of common sense people considering ‘chain of evidence’ / 2 + 2 = ___, etc ..
see:
http://tinyurl.com/3waxtpm
http://tinyurl.com/4x5rw3z
I have no idea what you think you are onto, Smacko. Spell it out and I will comment about it.
I have no idea what you are talking about and repeating it over and over again doesn’t help. If you have something to say, say it, because this obscurity is impenetrable and seems nothing but a form of deception itself. Spell it out.
The links below provide some answers to much that is missing in all the explanations.
If this material is not referenced, a major component is missing in your research.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/14/jeff-pragers-911-online-magazine/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49624448/Jeff-Prager-Nuclear-911-2011-Detailed-Exposure-of-the-Thermonuclear-Demolition
My research has been narrowly focused on the question of how explosive is nanothermite.
I hope that my work can help level the playing field so all hypotheses can be considered fairly.
I have studied the nuke hypothesis enough that I am convinced that it merits my further study, so I appreciate you drawing our attention to Jeff Prager’s work. I have noted that one of the references that nanothermite advocates cite also refers to nanotechnology and mini-nukes.
Military Reloads with Nanotech
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/14105/page1/
Here is a quote from the last part of the article.
Nanotechnology “could completely change the face of weaponry,” according to Andy Oppenheimer, a weapons expert with analyst firm and publisher Jane’s Information Group. Oppenheimer says nations including the United States, Germany, and Russia are developing “mini-nuke” devices that use nanotechnology to create much smaller nuclear detonators.
Oppenheimer says the devices could fit inside a briefcase and would be powerful enough to destroy a building. Although the devices require nuclear materials, because of their small size “they blur the line with conventional weapons,” Oppenheimer says.
The mini-nuke weapons are still in the research phase and may be surreptitiously funded since any form of nuclear proliferation is “politically contentious” because of the possibility that they could fall into the hands of terrorists, Oppenheimer says.
The creation of much smaller nuclear bombs adds new challenges to the effort to limit weapons of mass destruction, according to Oppenheimer.
“(The bombs) could blow open everything that is in place for arms control,” Oppenheimer says. “Everything gets more dangerous.”
Who said that ONLY thermite was used in the demolitions at the WTC?
None of us. That is not the question. The point is the properties of nanothermite have been grossly oversold.
Jim Fetzer
July 18, 2011 – 8:07 am(Edit)
My view has long been that the thermite/thermate/nanothermite theory represented (what is known as) a degenerating research paradigm: it was not spawning any new hypotheses, new research, or new ideas. It seemed to me to be a dead end. Now we know the reason why. And having emancipated ourselves from a false theory, we can explore how it was really done. Nanothermite may have played a role here, but it was secondary to the principal source(s) of massive energy required to blow the towers apart and to convert most of the concrete and steel into very fine dust, which was crucial to make sure that no substantial part of those buildings shattered the bathtub and allowed the Hudson River to flood beneath lower Manhattan, the subway and PATH train tunnels, which would have been an additional catastrophe! These thoughtful “terrorists” made sure that didn’t happen! That was considerate of them!
WHERE DID THE IDEA OF HIGH EXPLOSIVE NANOTHERMITE (OR SUPERTHERMITE) COME FROM?
Hopefully, someone like David Ray Griffin, who is very clear, precise, and logical in his use of the English language, and who is a careful and painstaking scholar, can weigh in and help to verify that I am correct in my interpretation of the source of the notion that nanothermite is a high explosive, which at this point in time is akin to a dogma of 9/11 Truth.
In 2006 Professor Steven Jones wrote,
“Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. “Superthermites” are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the available data.” (2)
(2) Jones, Steven E., “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” Journal of 911 Studies, Volume 3, September 2006
Now ask yourself, what is the most reasonable interpretation of “Superthermites are also explosive” in the above context? Would it be that superthermites are explosives in like manner to the high explosives HMX or RDX?
This seems a reasonable interpretation to me. Jones has defined what he is talking about when he first uses the word explosives by saying, “such as,” and then citing two “high explosives,” HMX and RDX. In the next sentence when he uses the word “explosive”, is it not reasonable to assume he is using it in the same sense that he just used it and defined its use in the previous sentence?
Jones is definitely differentiating “superthermite” from “thermite,” and putting superthermite in the category of explosive rather than incendiary like thermite, but it also seems clear that he is putting superthermite in the category of high explosive because he defined his use of the term “explosive” as high explosive.
Only Jones himself can really answer to what he meant when he wrote this. But, as I see it, there are only two possibilities here. Either Jones meant that superthermite is a high explosive, or he is not very precise in his use of the English language.
We now know that the highest detonation velocity for an iron oxide/aluminum nanothermite yet found in the technical literature is only 895 m/s, compared to detonation velocities of 9100 m/s and 8750 m/s for HMX and RDX, respectively. Jones may not have known this when he wrote the above. He could have written in ignorance. He could have honestly believed it when he wrote it.
On May 10, 2011 Jones posted an article to 911Blogger entitled, “Responses to questions regarding thermite, nanothermite and conventional explosives used in the WTC destruction.”
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-10/responses-questions-regarding-thermite-nanothermite-and-conventional-explosives-used-wtc-destruction
I have been following this closely, because in this post Jones denies that he put superthermite in the same category of explosiveness as HMX and RDX in response to an email of mine.
“4. Do you agree that “ Jones is putting “superthermite” in the same category of explosiveness as HMX and RDX” as claimed by Mark Hightower? (Email to Jones and numerous others from Mark Hightower, 8 May 2011).”
“No, I do not. While the Los Alamos developers note that superthermite can be tailored for use in “explosive devices” as cited above, specifics are not given, evidently because of “military” applications.”
What is noteworthy about Jones’ 911Blogger post is that he continues to revise it, while the date that appears at the top remains the same as 5/10/2011 11:47 pm.
For example, within the last couple of days, he added this to the post: “While the reaction of the red material is highly exothermic, as shown in Figure 29 in our paper, the behavior on ignition after years of air-exposure does not allow us to call the material “high explosive” and I would not use that term in describing it.”
I know that is the case because, on 5/12/2011, I printed out a copy of Jones’ post, and the above, which I have quoted, was not a part of it.
In the last day or two, I also received an email from Jones where he referenced the 911Blogger post and I saw the above sentence, which I had never seen before.
David Ray Griffin, who recently wrote in an email to me (7/7/2011) that making a determination of the high explosiveness of nanothermite was “above his pay grade,” must have gotten the idea from somewhere, when he wrote in his article of July 6, 2010
http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9849/
“High explosives, such as RDX or nanothermite, could explain these
horizontal ejections.”
“Being both an incendiary and a high explosive, nanothermite is one
among several types of “energetic nanocomposites” — described by an
article in *The Environmentalist* as “chemical energetic materials,
which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water,
dust, or chemical suppressants.”[108]”
Griffin, I have no serious doubt, acquired the idea that nanothermite is a high explosive from Jones. And of course because of the Bentham Open Science article and through the efforts of Richard Gage, especially, it has become perhaps the most widely held belief of all within the 9/11 Truth community. Kevin Ryan and many others have promoted it. The time to set the record straight is now.
THE AMPTIAC NEWSLETTER & NANOTHERMITE
The US Department of Defense AMPTIAC Newsletter of Spring 2002 is often cited as documentation for the explosiveness of nanothermite. Kevin Ryan cited it as reference 3 in his June 20, 2011 article on 911 Blogger, “The explosive nature of nanothermite.” Let’s see what it actually says.
http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf
FROM BACKGROUND SECTION
“At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives and propellant applications.”
Please note that nanomaterials is a broader concept than nanothermite. Nanothermite may be a nanomaterial, but not all nanomaterials are nanothermites.
BELOW FROM LAST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION ON METASTABLE INTERMOLECULAR
COMPOSITES (MICs)
“These include energy output that is 2x that of typical high explosives, the ability to tune the reactive power (10 KW/cc to 10 GW/cc), tunable reaction front velocities of 0.1-1500 meters/sec, and reaction zone temperature exceeding 3000K. Specific areas of possible applications include use in environmentally clean primers and detonators, chem/bio agent neutralization, improved rocket propellants, IR flares/decoys, thermal batteries, and others.”
Notice the reaction front velocities cited are quite low compared to conventional high explosives.
Early in the section, reference is given to Al/MoO3, Al/Teflon, and Al/CuO. No mention is made of Al/Fe2O3 MIC in this entire section. At the point of the above quote it is not clear exactly what mixture is being referred to. This article is like a magazine article rather than a technical journal. There is a list of references at the end, but it is difficult to determine exactly which ones to consult for documentation
since they are not specifically cited.
The next section is on Sol-Gels. Al/Fe2O3 nanothermite is referred to in this section, but also both CuO and MoO3 nanothermites are referred to as having greater energy of reaction. No reaction velocities are given in this section. Below is a quote from the end of the section, but it is impossible to know exactly what is being referred to in the quote.
“As sol-gel materials and methodology advances, there are a number of possible application areas that are envisioned. These include: (1) high temperature stable, non-detonable gas generators, (2) adaptable flares, (3) primers, and (4) high-power, high-energy composite explosives. In addition, the sol-gel chemistry may have advantages of being more environmentally acceptable compared to some other methods of producing energetics.”
In all of the references that I have seen cited to support the explosiveness of nanothermite, one needs to be careful not to extrapolate or exaggerate the generally vague statements found. One needs to look to the details where actual performance characteristics are given.
The textbook “Chemistry of High-Energy Materials” by Thomas Klapotke has
an entire section on Nanothermites.
http://www.amazon.com/Chemistry-High-Energy-Materials-Gruyter-Textbook/dp/3110227835/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311453647&sr=1-1
I learned from this section that the term “superthermite” comes from the fact that nanothermites are super compared to regular thermite, and can even be explosive, but they are not at all super compared to explosives in general. I will quote from this text below.
“Finally, the term “superthermite” comes from the fact that thermites composed of nano-sized materials exhibit very different combustion characteristics when compared to those mixed with micron-sized
precursors. Superior combustion velocities, and explosive behavior compared to the usually observed deflagration often characterize thermites made with nanoscale precursors.”
It is this reference where I have so far found the highest documented combustion velocity for an Fe2O3/aluminum nanothermite, namely 895 m/s for a sol gel (aerogel, 70 nm Al added before gellation).
To give a little more perspective on explosives in general, I have consulted the “Blasters’ Handbook,” 17th edition, International Society of Explosives Engineeers, 1998
http://www.amazon.com/Blasters-Handbook-17ED-Robert-Hopler/dp/1892396009/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311454193&sr=1-1
This book has more of an emphasis on the use of explosives for mining purposes, and really does not get into building demolition, but this is what it has to say about explosives on page 32.
“The detonation velocities of commercial explosives range from as low as 5400 fps (1640 m/s) for certain permissible explosives used in coal mining to as high as 25,000 fps (7600 m/s) for cast boosters. Most commercial explosives used today have detonation velocities which fall in the range of 10,000 to 18,000 fps (3000 to 5500 m/s).”
9/11 thermite evidence haunts US liars
http://www.presstv.com/detail/190668.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oivV1ynIdAg
Jim,,,
Thanks for your cordial reply and link to some of the reasons why the official account of 9-11 is provably false (thereby obviously requiring another inquiry and honest/factual answers). It’s a good truth telling, but it obviously is not the whole truth. That does not make it wrong–it makes it incomplete, and requiring more investigations and answers. I’m with you wanting the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and in my efforts toward that end asked some questions you failed to address in your reply, to wit:
Question: Do you deny the proof/claims of nano-thermite in the dust samples, and if you do not deny the residue, what is your explanation for it, if not for demolition purposes (not necessarily as an explosive let alone the sole explosive)?
Question: In discounting the claims of nanothermite, you and others claim data concerning the velocity of the nanothermite, yet I haven’t seen the basis for your claims. Since nano-thermite formulations are varied according to use and were known to be only secretly formulated/produced at US Natl. labs, please provide your mil-spec data sources for the specific formulation and its performance—ie. would you please provide the source data for claimed calculations?
And if you don’t mind, one more question for you: Why do you insist that the towers were brought down by only now-unprovable methods, when there is peer-reviewed proof of inexplicable nanothermite particulate in the dust, that by itself demands a new investigation?
I’m not saying that it was the only compound or for that matter technique–used to bring down the towers and Building 7. What I am saying is that it played a major role in the demolitions, and with new investigations we will be able to find out exactly who, what, where, and when the details happened. Then we will know and this obfuscation can be ended—at least regarding 9-11.
Here’s the real deal: in an investigation—a real one that is–one thing inevitably leads to another, and that is a real problem for both Republicans and Democrats—problems that might result in convictions for capital crimes for many leaders from both parties. The cloth could be unraveled going back over 100 years—and the history that most US citizens believe in, be proved to be in large part false.
It won’t stop with 9-11 or what has happened since—or the first Gulf War, Vietnam, the Kennedy’s and MLK, Panama, Haiti, Grenada, through WW1 and 2 and the Spanish-American War or the many other travesties that will be brought to light. It will reveal what our tax dollars really do in the world, and why so many around the world hate us–and imo with good reason.
That is why both parties fudge history–because if the US people had to face what our government really does with our tax dollars to not only our own citizens, but to billions of innocent people around the world, there would be a revolution that would not only end both parties, but more importantly the stranglehold that multinational corporate interests have over them.
locoto
I agree that the discovery of these chips, which appear to be residues of nanothermite, tells us that something is wrong. If the “hard evidence” crowd had not grossly exaggerated their claims about its capabilities, we would not have had to explain here that it actually cannot destroy concrete or steel and therefore does not by itself have the kinds of properties required to destroy the Twin Towers. But Mark and I would both agree that its presence still has probative value. The problem is that the claims made on its behalf are not true. The problem is that a “9/11 Truth” movement cannot be based on a false theory. The “9/11 Truth” movement must be based upon truth and not fiction.
And Mark suggested adding, as a point of clarification, that we agree that nanothermite was probably used to cut the steel in preparation for the demolition of the buildings. What we deny is that it has the capability to destroy concrete or steel on the basis of the shock waves it can generate, which are far less “energentic” than would have been required to perform that task. We would like those who have so strongly advocated the role of nanothermite in the past to simply qualify their claims to make them more reasonable and to focus on the additional sources of energy required to demolish them. The 9/11 Truth movement must be based upon truth and not exaggeration.
Yes,
ALL ‘Bogus Conclusions’
Misdirect / Marginalize / Sabotage
Our Primary Position Of Seeking ‘Appropriate Conclusions’
(‘Appropriate Conclusions’ via Due-Processing Accountability)
Presenting Hypocritical Hurts Our Primary Position Of Seeking Accountability.
Furthermore, Hypocritical divisive infighting insisting on doublespeak damages the
accountable unity required regarding the Accountability WE Seek.
“9/11 Truth” should not be ‘Based Upon’ ‘False Theory Doublespeak’;
But Instead Be Better Based Upon The Due-Process Accountability WE Seek!
Better to practice what we preach!
Dear Mr. Fetzer, I hope this helps to clarify.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ClearCog/message/18
—
WhoDid911?
The Accountability We Seek,
rather than conspiracy fiction misdirection, heckled marginalization routines
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GovernmentShadow/message/28952
Bowman stays on point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZToRnx8rwHs
also see:
http://tinyurl.com/3waxtpm
http://tinyurl.com/4x5rw3z
http://tinyurl.com/3pqvr27
Smacko, There is nothing “bogus” about our reasoning, but I have some doubts about you. Today, I did an interview with Kevin Barrett on “Truth Jihad Radio” and rebroadcast the show the second hour of “The Real Deal”, which should be archived at radiofetzer.blogspot.com soon. I suggest you listed and give this more thought. 9/11 Truth cannot be based upon a false theory.
There is a typo in one of Prien’s messages, “post hoc, ergo, property hoc” should be “propter hoc”, without “y”.
[...] http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/ [...]
References for 895 m/s iron oxide/aluminum nanothermite and 2400 m/s copper oxide/aluminum nanothermite.
Here are two papers that refer to the 895 m/s combustion velocity for iron oxide/aluminum nanothermite. The Klapotke paper is similar to the section in his textbook, “Chemistry of High-Energy Materials.” His paper refers to the Gash et al. paper as the source of the 895 m/s data. The Klapotke paper below also refers to the highest known combustion velocity for a metal oxide/aluminum mixture, namely 2400 m/s for a copper oxide/aluminum variety of nanothermite.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53011584/Klapotke
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/302999.pdf
Questions for Fetzer, Hightower and Nelson_2008:
1. Is there any actual evidence (apart from supposition) that the ‘red/grey chips’ analyzed by Jones originated from the WTC towers?
2. Why would a thermite be presented in the form of ‘chips’, if packing density is a factor in its burn rate?
3. Why would a thermite, which relies on the close proximity of reactive components in a homogeneous mixture, consist of two distinctly colored material layers which are not mixed at all?
4. Why does Jones not explain of what the grey layer in his ‘chips’ consists?
5. Why does Jones not explain of what the ‘organic material’ in his ‘chips’ consists?
6. How can an exothermic burn, once initiated in and propagating through a solid thermite material, be stopped so as to leave uniform ‘chips’ of same lying around intact and unreacted for collection by Manhattan Residents?
7. And if #6 were possible, how could all the ‘chips’ NOT be covered with reaction products from the burn?
8. Why would conspiratorial ‘controlled demolitioneers’ pick such a severely inefficient material which leaves an estimated 100 tons of unreacted explosive agent lying around?
9. Is there evidence that red or grey paint was used in WTC towers?
10. Why did Jones not heat the ‘chips’ to ignition point in the absence of atmospheric oxygen (inert gas or vacuum) to prove the material can actually sustain a thermitic reaction?
11. Why did Jones not demonstrate the absence/existence of thermite reaction products before/after burning his ‘chips’?
12. Why has no reputable and qualified scientist ever replicated the ‘explosive’ findings of Jones et al?
13. Which ‘peers’ reviewed Jones et al paper prior to publication, how are they qualified and who selected them?
These are all excellent questions. Thank you for posting them. I will invite Mark to address them.
I forwarded these questions to Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit, and others, and have now received a response from Niels Harrit:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Niels Harrit wrote:
Answers by Niels Harrit in italics to
Questions for Fetzer, Hightower and Nelson_2008:
1. Is there any actual evidence (apart from supposition) that the ‘red/grey chips’ analyzed by Jones originated from the WTC towers?
The samples originated from locations in different directions from WTC. The dust fell from the sky. One sample was collected 20 min after the collapse of the North Tower. It you don’t believe it came from WTC, why do you bother to discuss the data at all?
2. Why would a thermite be presented in the form of ‘chips’, if packing density is a factor in its burn rate?
The thermite is not ”presented”. The chips were found as remains of something – we don’t know what.
3. Why would a thermite, which relies on the close proximity of reactive components in a homogeneous mixture, consist of two distinctly colored material layers which are not mixed at all?
Only the red layer shows the thermite reaction. Apparently, the reactive components are close enough. You are addressing the vey core of nanotehnology when you call a nanocomposite ”homogeneous”. I would say it is not. Conventional thermite is certainly not.
4. Why does Jones not explain of what the grey layer in his ‘chips’ consists?
We do. It is purely Fe2O3. Did you read the paper? Look e.g at Fig. 6 and in the text.
5. Why does Jones not explain of what the ‘organic material’ in his ‘chips’ consists?
Because we don’t know.
6. How can an exothermic burn, once initiated in and propagating through a solid thermite material, be stopped so as to leave uniform ‘chips’ of same lying around intact and unreacted for collection by Manhattan Residents?
No incendiary or explosive reactions are complete. We do speculate on this in the paper.
7. And if #6 were possible, how could all the ‘chips’ NOT be covered with reaction products from the burn?
The paper describes mainly the unreacted chips and their reaction in the lab. There are many reacted and some semi-reacted chips in the dust. But considering the enourmous quantities of iron spheres formed, the reacted/unreacted chips can only represent a very small quantity of of the bulk thermitic material in the buildings.
8. Why would conspiratorial ‘controlled demolitioneers’ pick such a severely inefficient material which leaves an estimated 100 tons of unreacted explosive agent lying around?
The efficiency was demonstrated by the succesful demolitions. As to the clues left behind, the perpetrators could be dumb or careless. Or they were relying on people like Jim Fetzer to cover them up (which was not too clever either).
9. Is there evidence that red or grey paint was used in WTC towers?
Not grey, to my knowledge. But red paint was used in overly abundance. All the structural steel was covered with a primer paint containing iron oxide (and zink chromate, which is lemon yellow, giving the beams an orange tinge). See: http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/
10. Why did Jones not heat the ‘chips’ to ignition point in the absence of atmospheric oxygen (inert gas or vacuum) to prove the material can actually sustain a thermitic reaction?
Because the only published DSC of nanothermite was done in air and because WTC was not demolished under argon.
11. Why did Jones not demonstrate the absence/existence of thermite reaction products before/after burning his ‘chips’?
Did the questioner ever read the paper? Am I wasting my time here?
12. Why has no reputable and qualified scientist ever replicated the ‘explosive’ findings of Jones et al?
Ask them – if you can find anyone not depending on governmental funding.
13. Which ‘peers’ reviewed Jones et al paper prior to publication, how are they qualified and who selected them?
Your question should be addressed to the management of the journal.
Apparently, the questioner has a distorted picture of the review process. Almost all scientific journals require that you suggest referees together with your submission. Like, in American Chemical Society journals you simply cannot activte the ”submit button” unless you have provided all personal details of at least five (or seven) potential referees. (For an example of such an ACS paper, you may be interested in seeing the galley proof of my latest article (in print) here:
http://dc-pubs.acs.org/action/showGalleyPdf?doi=10.1021%2Fic2006875%40proofing
PS: Five of the other authors are my previous students.)
Both parties, the journal and the authors, are interested in a qualified review. Far too often, the referee simply does not understand the paper or is reading it sloppily. So the authors put on the list researchers who they know are qualified and thorough. The selection can be quite limited when we are dealing with highly specialized, ground-breaking research as in the example given. Sometimes, the authers can guess the identity of the referee from his/her preference or points of criticism. Sometimes, the referee reveals him/herself to the authors when he/she becomes overly interested and want to engage in a more thorough discussion. This is a good thing, as it always leads to a better publication and saves a lot of work for the editorial staff.
Now Niels tries out for a “stand up comedy” routine. Because I have been skeptical about the “explosive” potential of nanothermite for years and participated in a research group studying the question for a year before Mark and I published about it, I AM SUPPOSED TO BE THE “BAD GUY”?
Neils Harrit had better get a grip on the seriousness of this matter. While he was not the primary proponent of the “explosive nanothermite” myth–as Mark and I observed in “Is ’9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”–he is now implicating himself in the cover-up by attacking me for the malfeasance of his associates.
It was not Mark or I who laid the basis for David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage–and most of the 9/11 Truth community–to buy the fiction that it is a “high explosive”! I really do not understand why Niels would want to trash me for trying to save 9/11 Truth from being based upon a fiction.
We complimented him on his RUSSIA TODAY interview, but he is now in the same category with Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others who have so grossly exaggerated the causal role of nanothermite by implying that I am participating in a “cover up” of how the demolition of the towers was done.
I am sorry, Niels, but you are impugning your own integrity by remarks like those. Before this, I still had respect for your role. By making comments like this, you tarnish your own character and integrity.
Contrasting uniformity and non-uniformity of WTC dust sample results of the Harrit et al. paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
T Mark Hightower
8/8/2011
ABSTRACT
Although the Harrit et al. paper claims great uniformity of results among all samples based on all the tests apart from the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) tests, this is in significant contrast to the tremendous lack of uniformity reflected in the DSC results.
Also, although the paper contains a rather doubtful statement regarding its findings in one part of the paper, it concludes with a strikingly confident conclusion in the final statement of the paper.
THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE DIFFERENTIAL SCANNING CALORIMETER (DSC) RESULTS
There are some weaknesses in the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) data that is presented in the paper (Harrit et al.) for the 4 dust samples.
There were 4 dust samples tested. Page 9 of the paper identifies them as
1 MacKinlay
2 Delassio/Breidenbach
3 Intermount
4 White
The DSC data is presented in the text of page 19, section 3, which refers to graphical results of Fig. 19 on page 20. One of the DSC traces is compared to a trace of published nanothermite data in Fig. 29 on page 25. The results are presented in Fig. 30 on page 27 in the form of bar graphs reporting units of kJ/g.
There is an oddity I want to point out before I get into the first weakness.
The data referred to on page 19 and in Fig. 19 appears to have not included sample 2 Delassio/Breidenbach, but instead has a MacKinlay 2 sample in its place to give a total of 4 samples tested. In Fig. 30 the 4 samples are clearly labeled as 1, 2, 3, and 4, so here it seems to imply that the 2 Delassio/Breidenbach sample is included. Interestingly, the numerical value of 3 kJ/g given in the text on page 19 for the MacKinlay 2 sample of Fig. 19 is the same or at least close to the same as the 2 (presumably) Delassio/Breidenbach sample of Fig. 30. Clarification from the authors should be sought to clear up this confusion.
So there were 4 separate dust samples, with multiple red/gray chips in each sample.
I will use the numerical values of energy release given in the text (page 19) as representing the values in the bar graph of Fig. 30 for the 4 WTC chip samples. These would be
Sample 1: 1.5 kJ/g
Sample 2: 3 kJ/g
Sample 3: 7.5 kJ/g
Sample 4: 6 kJ/g
As these four DSC data points are all we have, it is of note that there is tremendous scatter in this data. The average value is 4.5 and the standard deviation is 2.7. As two standard deviations is usually what is used when referring to a value being +/- some uncertainty, in rough terms, we would then say that the DSC data gives an average value of 4.5 kJ/g, with an uncertainty of +/- 100%.
It appears that only one red/gray chip was selected from each sample for DSC testing. If DSC tests had been done separately for multiple chips in each sample, then the question of whether the scatter in the data was present similarly within each of the samples could also have been addressed. You cannot find what you do not look for.
The paper offers some possible explanations for the scatter in the data. From page 19, section 3, it states,
“Variations in peak height as well as yield estimates are not surprising, since the mass used to determine the scale of the signal, shown in the DSC traces, included the mass of the gray layer. The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm, and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.”
Page 29, Conclusion 10. offers an explanation for higher total energy release than can be explained by the classic thermite reaction (true for samples 3 & 4)
“The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction.”
If citing gray layer variation and organic content is not enough to explain the tremendous variation in the results, another explanation is added on page 27, section 6. I will quote an entire paragraph so you can appreciate the context.
“It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure. Again, conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive [6, 24]. As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component.”
So the DSC tests were done in air so extra oxygen was present to help liberate energy from any organics that might be present.
I know there is very little data to go on, just 4 DSC scans of red/gray chips, but with the scatter in the data and the explanations offered to explain it, I get the impression that the red/gray chips are tremendously lacking in uniformity. Or else there is much inherent error in the experimental apparatus.
By having air and therefore a source of oxygen present in the DSC seems to be an error in method since it allows for the input of energy from outside the substance that is itself being measured for its energy content. From Fig. 30 Chip 3 liberates considerably more energy than the high explosive HMX, and Chip 4 also exceeds the HMX value, but only by a little. The HMX provides its own oxygen within its chemical makeup, so it would not depend upon additional oxygen present to liberate its full energy. (Be sure not to confuse energy release with detonation velocity, an issue I am not dealing with in this write-up.)
I would like to see what a DSC trace of pure HMX would look like. It would probably look quite different because it would start to release its energy at a lower temperature, the deflagration temperature of HMX being 287 deg C. (page 238, “Explosives,” 6th edition, Meyer et al., 2007)
In summary, the DSC data is extremely limited with much scatter and has a potential method error. Drawing firm conclusions from it is extremely dubious.
QUANTIFYING EXPLANATIONS FOR SCATTER IN DSC DATA
Variability in proportions of gray layer within the red/gray chips and organics present in the red layer are cited as explanations for the scatter in the DSC data. Let’s quantify these explanations to see what kind of variability of the specimens might account for the scatter in the data.
The energy release for thermite is cited as 3.9 kJ/g. For the lowest value from the DSC tests, 1.5 kJ/g for sample 1, let’s first assume for the sake of illustration that this specimen had a low value because it had no organics in the red layer (in other words it is essentially pure thermite), and the gray layer being predominantly iron oxide as the paper says, acted as excess reactant and therefore was essentially inert providing no energy in the DSC test. In this case, the red layer would have to be present at 38 % by weight and the gray layer present at 62 % within the specimen. The math is 1.5/3.9 = 0.38. In summary, this would be assuming no organics, 38% red layer, and 62% gray layer.
The above calculation is done as a base case for comparison, even though its assumption of no organics in the red layer goes against the major thrust of the conclusion of the Harrit et al. paper that the red layer is a form of nanothermite that includes organics.
The next calculation is an attempt to quantify the high end of the DSC data, 7.5 kJ/g for sample 3. The presence of organics is cited as the explanation for the high value by the paper. Pure high explosive HMX has a energy release of 5.2 kJ/g, so even if sample 3 were 100 % HMX, this could not account for the higher value of 7.5 kJ/g obtained by the DSC test. So, for the sake of illustration, I am going to assume that the organic present in the red layer has an energy release of twice that of HMX, or 10.4 kJ/g. To help account for the high value of 7.5 kJ/g for sample 3, I am also going to assume that it contains no gray layer. In other words I am going to assume that sample 3 is 100 % red layer material. Setting x = weight fraction thermite in the red layer, the math is 3.9x + 10.4(1-x) = 7.5. Solving for x gives 0.45. So based on the above assumptions the red layer would have to contain 45 % thermite by weight and 55 % organic. In summary, this would be 100% red layer, no gray layer, with the red layer made up of 45% thermitic material and 55% organics.
Let’s now go back to the low value case, 1.5 kJ/g for sample 1, and assume that it is made up of red layer (containing 45 % thermite and 55 % organic from the previous calculation) plus gray layer of inert excess iron oxide reactant. In this case then, the specimen would have to contain 20 % red layer and 80 % gray layer. The math is 1.5/7.5 = 0.2. In summary, this would be 20% red layer (made up of 45% thermite and 55% organic) and 80% gray layer.
Therefore, a very high degree of variability among the red/gray chips is necessary to explain the scatter in the DSC test data, unless there is significant error in the experimental apparatus and technique.
This is in contrast to these statements from the paper concerning the great uniformity of results.
From page 15, right column, it states, “From these data, it is determined that the red/gray chips from different WTC dust samples are extremely similar in their chemical and structural makeup. It is also shown that within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich grains and Al/Si plate-like particles and that these particles are embedded in a carbon-rich matrix.”
From page 23, upper left column, it states, “The results clearly show the similarities of the red/gray chips from the different dust samples from all four sites.”
ANOTHER WEAKNESS IN THE DSC DATA
On page 25 of the paper, it says
“The red layer of the red/gray chips is most interesting in that it contains aluminum, iron and oxygen components which are intimately mixed at a scale of approximately 100 nanometers (nm) or less. Now we compare a DSC trace obtained for a WTC red/gray chip with a DSC trace obtained for known super-thermite (see Fig. (29)).”
Note that in Fig. 29 the trace of the WTC sample is really not all that similar to the known super-thermite. The WTC sample cited in Fig. 29 is the MacKinlay sample, although it does not say whether it is the MacKinlay 1 or MacKinlay 2 sample. But from Fig. 19, where 4 WTC DSC traces are plotted, for the four samples, MacKinlay 1, MacKinlay 2, Intermont, and White, the two MacKinlay samples are the lowest energy release traces. The other two, Intermont (sample 3), and White (sample 4) have much higher energy release, and deviate even more from the known super-thermite trace of Fig. 29.
STATISTICAL WEAKNESS OF THE DATA PRESENTED IN THE PAPER
With the tremendous scatter in the DSC data presented in the paper, and its implication for extreme non uniformity of the red/gray chips that I have tried to quantify, the question needs to be raised on all of the other tests that were performed to characterize the red/gray chips, and whether additional tests should have been done on other of the chips within the samples, to see if those tests also would have shown such high levels of non uniformity.
OTHER QUOTES OF NOTE FROM THE PAPER
From page 25 of the paper, right column, first paragraph, the final sentence is
“We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains.” This statement expresses a lot of doubt about the findings.
From page 29 of the paper, final paragraph.
“Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.” This final conclusion statement of the paper expresses much less doubt.
Thank you, Mark, for this thought-provoking critique.
I can’t help but ask how the peer review could have missed this.
CALCULATING HOW MUCH NANOTHERMITE PAINT MIGHT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED
Nanothermite advocates posit that it could have been painted on.
On 7/27/2011 Niels Harrit did a calculation of how much thermitic material would have been needed to account for the production of the many tiny iron spheres in the dust. I took the lower end of the range he
calculated, divided by 110, to get an average value of 260 metric tons of nanothermite needed per floor of a WTC Twin Tower.
Well I have expanded upon that calculation a bit.
This web site gives the recipe for an iron oxide aerogel, I am assuming much like the thermite aerogel that Dr. Alex Gash produced that achieved a combustion velocity of 895 m/s.
http://www.aerogel.org/?p=1254
From the data given, I took the highest density given, so as not to over estimate the volume of this aerogel needed.
The highest density is given as 0.2 g/cm^3. Aerogels are very light.
Water has a density of 1 g/cm^3 or 8.34 lbs/gal.
So volume of aerogel needed per floor = (260)(2200)/(8.34)(0.2) = 343,000 gallons.
If we make the additional generous assumption that there is no shrinkage upon drying, then 343,000 gallons of nanothermite paint were needed per floor.
If you take the area of a floor as (200)(200) = 40,000 ft^2, then it would take 343,000/40,000 = 8.6 gallons of paint per square foot of floor.