LISTEN VT RADIO | JOIN TEAM VT | SIGN UP DAILY NEWSLETTER
VETERANS TODAY ON : FACEBOOK | TWITTER | VT FORUM
|

Nanothermite: If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit!

T. Mark Hightower (with Jim Fetzer)

 

Those who remember the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial will recall the gloves that turned out to be “too small” for O.J.’s hands when the long-awaited day of trying them on in the courtroom finally arrived. The blood-soaked gloves (one found at the crime scene and the other found outside O.J.’s house in Brentwood the morning after his former wife was murdered) were gloated over as “hard evidence” by the prosecution and the media, which is very comparable to how the discovery of unignited nanothermite chips in the WTC dust is considered to be “hard evidence” of the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers on September 11th, 2001.

 

Although some have expressed skepticism about what is often called the “smoking gun” of 9/11, the great majority of 9/11 Truthers have accepted – and many have celebrated – this discovery, confident that it will lead to “a new, independent investigation” of the event and bring the perpetrators to justice. But precisely how did the resulting “nanothermite theory” of destruction of the Twin Towers come about – and how well does it stand up to critical scrutiny?

Why Nanothermite?

Observations by first responders of apparent molten metal – thought to be molten iron – could be explained by thermite reactions, which, in turn, could possibly explain the severing of steel columns through a process of melting. However, the explosive effects observed in the destruction call for some further explanation. Nanothermite has been identified as a candidate, being faster-reacting and alleged to be “an explosive form” of thermite.

  In a paper titled “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” (2006), physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones cited thermite to explain the molten metal and first started raising the possibility that  nanothermite could explain the additional explosive effects observed. Then four dust samples  collected in the aftermath of the towers’ collapse by different individuals were sent to Dr. Jones, and  upon testing, they were found to contain unreacted red chips of a nanothermitic material.

 

Those results were reported in a later paper titled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in the Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels Harrit, et al. (April, 2009), and because of this many assumed that nanothermite had been definitively identified as the prime candidate destructive agent. The paper, said to have been peer-reviewed, came out in the Open Chemical Physics Journal (Bentham Science Publishers), causing 9/11 Truthers to run with the news that explosive nanothermite blew up the Twin Towers, proclaiming what soon became a form of gospel in the 9/11 community. The Gospel of Nanothermite has given the incendiary properties of thermite a set of new miraculous powers: in its nano-state it becomes “Super Thermite” – a high-explosive that pulverized hundreds of thousands of tons of building materials in no more than 10 seconds.

A Literature Search

A scientific person, or one who prefers to use logic, might wonder about such claims and proceed by examining the scientific literature on nanothermite as well as the principle of how explosives achieve destructive force through generating shock waves that produce fragmentation. This might be a good time to note that the Rock Creek Free Press made a very important point in its May 2009 article on nanothermite: “To be a high explosive, the reaction speed must exceed the speed of sound in the material, which is unlikely in the case of thermitic materials, but nano-thermitic material may act as a low explosive in a manner similar to gunpowder.”

 

Few who have carefully watched video footage of the Twin Towers coming down could fail to notice what might appropriately be called “explosive effects” in the nature of the destruction. The question then would be: Were conventional explosives or some other kind of destructive energy source employed? If nanothermite is indeed a high explosive, then was it also necessary to use conventional explosives to achieve the demolition of the towers? The more sophisticated believer might agree that conventional explosives also could have been employed, but for the scientifically less sophisticated 9/11 Truther, the “Thermite/Nanothermite Gospel” says it all – and has been “conclusively proven” by the nine authors of the 2009 published and peer-reviewed paper.

 

But what does other peer-reviewed scientific literature actually have to say about nanothermite? “Nanoscale Aluminum-Metal Oxide (Thermite) Reactions for Application in Energetic Materials,” Central European Journal of Energetic Materials (2010), authored by Davin G. Piercey and Thomas M. Klapötke,

 

identifies the fastest known combustion velocity for a mixture of metal oxide and aluminum: 2,400 meters per second (m/s), in a type of nanothermite made of copper oxide and aluminum. Remember that what Steven Jones found in the dust was iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite. The authors of this paper make it clear that copper-oxide/aluminum nanothermite is significantly more reactive than the iron-oxide version, and cite a combustion velocity of 895 m/s for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite aerogel. So 895 m/s is the highest velocity yet to be found for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite in the scientific literature, where this velocity is far too low to have played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers by means of its shock waves.

 

Not Powerful Enough

Let’s examine the reason for that important last statement. The “destructive fragmentation effect” of an explosive is its detonation velocity, or the speed of the shock wave through the substance it is traveling in. To significantly fragment a substance, the detonation velocity of the explosive must equal or exceed the sonic velocity (the speed of sound) in the material. For example, the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s. In steel, the speed of sound is 6,100 m/s. Conventional high explosives such as TNT and RDX have detonation velocities of 6,900 and 8,750 m/s respectively, and are therefore capable of fragmenting concrete and steel, because both 6,900 and 8,750 exceed the sonic velocities of 3,200 m/s required to shatter concrete and 6,100 m/s required to shatter steel. As Dwain Deets has diagrammed, at only 895 m/s, iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite does not come close to TNT and RDX.

 

However, prominent 9/11 researchers have nonetheless termed nanothermite to be a powerful explosive. The very highly respected David Ray Griffin, Ph.D. calls nanothermite a “high explosive” in his July 6, 2010 article entitled “Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?”, which was published in the online journal, Global Research. “High explosives, such as RDX or nanothermite,” wrote Griffin, “could explain these horizontal ejections.”

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the most revered of 9/11 research groups, published a piece called “Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust” on April 5, 2009. In this they stated, “Ordinary thermite burns quickly and can melt through steel, but it is not explosive. Nanothermite, however, can be formulated as a high explosive.”

A “Secret” Technology?

While searching the open scientific literature on nanothermite and establishing the low detonation velocity of its iron-oxide/aluminum variety, chemical engineer T. Mark Hightower has been in contact and shared his findings with Dr. Steven Jones and the authors of the highly regarded April 2009 nanothermite paper, as well as with several other well-known 9/11 Truth leaders. The most recent responses to his challenges fall into two general categories. One response is that the combustion velocity of 895 m/s is enough to explain the Twin Towers’ destruction. The other is the rather persistent claim that nanothermite can indeed be a high explosive, where this formulation is a military secret that is not discussed in the open literature.

Alright. It is true that military explosives’ research employs nanotechnology and that applications involving nanothermite are a subset of this research. (The military even connects nanotechnology with mini-nukes, stating that a mini-nuke device the size of a suitcase could destroy an entire building.) But to suggest that the American military has a “secret recipe” that converts iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite into a high explosive when this claim is contradicted by the open literature doesn’t make any sense.

Easily found in the open literature is that copper-oxide/aluminum nanothermite can have a combustion velocity of 2,400 m/s, compared to 895 m/s for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite. If the 2,400 m/s number is not a military secret, why would a velocity greater than 895 m/s (for the iron-oxide variety of nanothermite) have to be kept secret? It is far more likely that the highest reported value of 895 m/s is due to physical property limitations of iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite rather than a need to keep higher values secret.

“Combined” with Explosives?

Additionally – just to be safe, perhaps – 9/11 nanothermite advocates also maintain the fall-back position that, even if nanothermite by itself is not a high explosive, when combined with an organic substance (also asserted to not be itself a high explosive), a high-explosive is created. To that T. Mark Hightower responds: “There is only one sure way to make nanothermite a high explosive. If you combine enough high explosives with nanothermite, you can get a mixture that is a high explosive. But the same can be said for my breakfast cereal.”

Hightower has further calculated that if conventional explosives (such as TNT or RDX) acting alone were used to bring down the Twin Towers, the quantity necessary would have been hundreds of tons of explosives per tower. On July 27, 2011, Niels  Harrit (chief author of the 2009 nanothermite paper) presented a calculation for how much thermitic material would have been necessary to explain the presence of the many tiny iron-rich spheres in the dust (assuming that a thermite reaction was the source of the spheres).

He gave a range of numbers, based on lower and higher concentrations of the thermite formulation. His lowest figure amounted to 29,000 metric tons of thermitic explosive per tower – a value hundreds of times greater than the calculation for conventional explosives. His “conservative” estimate (based on 10% iron-oxide in the thermitic material) was 143,000 metric tons of thermitic material that would have been placed in each tower. But let’s be realistic: How could the perpetrators drag in and plant over 100,000 tons of explosive without being seen? Even 29,000 tons is hard to imagine and would have been rather difficult to put in place unnoticed.

The Missing Element

A side note from the many technical papers on nanothermite studied by Hightower: nanothermite produces a blinding flash of light when it goes off. If such immense quantities of nanothermite were used to blow up the Twin Towers, then why didn’t we see tremendous bursts of blinding light all over those two buildings as they were destroyed and largely converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust?

 

The Dangers of a False Theory

 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which is led by Richard Gage, has been ceaselessly promoting the  nanothermite discovery as the “smoking gun” of 9/11, and calling the substance a “high explosive”. If there is  ever a proper investigation and a lawsuit is filed in a court of law on the “strength” of nanothermite as “hard  evidence” of controlled demolition by explosives at the World Trade Center and it is revealed to the court by the  opposing side that nanothermite is at best a very weak “explosive” and could not possibly have destroyed the  Twin Towers in seconds, the entire case would almost certainly be dismissed and a legal precedent set against  future efforts by others.

The danger of promoting a false theory or of overselling a weak hypothesis to millions of people is that it may someday be a convenient way to close the book on the entire issue. That 9/11 nanothermite advocates insist on their position in the face of significant refutations is disturbing. They are clearly unwilling to change their minds or even to discuss facts that expose weaknesses in their statements. What do these refusals really mean? Are some leaders deliberately pushing a flimsy theory with the intent that it will ultimately be shot down? Or is nanothermite a red herring or limited hangout to keep us from looking into what was really used?

The 9/11 Truth community can be confident in its refutations of the official account of 9/11 without having to present a “bullet-proof” alternate theory. It may well be that thermite/thermate/nanothermite was used in its familiar role as an incendiary (or “cutter charge”) in destroying the Twin Towers. But that is very different than to claim that it is a “high explosive” that could have destroyed those buildings. The 9/11 Truth movement must not commit itself to a feeble alternative, especially when an honest assessment of the empirical data for that theory does not support its applicability and actually refutes it.


T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer with more than two decades of experience in the industry, currently works for NASA. His views, however, are an exercise of his freedom of speech and in no way represent the positions of his employer.

Bookmark and Share

Related Posts:

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=135062

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners. Legal Notice

Posted by on Aug 27 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.
Get Your Loan Now
Apply for VA Loan Now
Education
Get Your Loan Now
Get Your Loan Now
Get Your Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now

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


Comments Closed

148 Comments for “Nanothermite: If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit!”

  1. Always keep in mind “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” – Albert Einstein

  2. The scientific method merely demonstrates that nano-thermite was used in the destruction of the 3 towers.

    It can still be doubted that it was the only cause of the destruction. I continue to doubt it can explain the destruction of “human bones and telephones” which could neither be wired or painted with sol-gel.

    But… My continuing question is this: Why is Dimitri Khalizov’s thermo-nuclear explanation not given a more fair and open airing in this debate?

    Dimitri’s explanation still makes the most sense to me.

    Cheers, Gentlement!

  3. If we are going to attempt to penetrate the STUPIDITY, why not do so effectively? The top of the pyramid is the Jesuit/Rothschild Central Banks.
    http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/rothschilds-papal-royal-knights/ Almost every nation on earth must borrow (indirectly) from the Bank of Rome in order to have a currency! A bumper sticker that says “Rothschild Slave” might do wonders.

    Everything below the top of the pyramid becomes controlled opposition. That is how the one world government creeps hijacked the 9/11 Truth movement.

    As long as the Central Banks exist, the noose of the control grid will continue to tighten around our throats. Neither the Rothschilds, Vatican/Jesuit Banks nor British royal family have been audited. An audit will reveal so much untaxed and ill gotten gains that the holdings will be returned to humanity. Ending the reign of the Central Banks is the only way out. Even 9/11 Truth will not be effective, since the STUPID way to deal with 9/11 truth is one world government!

  4. This argument is like a discussion in the parlor after dinner, over cigars and whiskey. Only vastly more important than any previous discussion, ever, I grant you. The proof that 9/11 was an inside job is found in innumerable factoids that can’t be explained away by the government’s reasonings. From wrong jet rotors, wrong landing gear, secret videos and photographs that are kept secret to protect the guilty, and that if made public, would not endanger our security one bit, the Christmas underwear bomber’s dance through Danish security, bin Laden’s nonexistant corpse, the assassination of the Seals, the isolation of Saddam Hussein after his arrest to keep him from talking, the signs of criminal behavior are limitless. How about our guy in D.C.; he says the phrase ‘make sure’ daily, because he’s our go-to guy, right? He’ll make sure our pillows are fluffed every night, and that our beer will always be ice cold. Such an obviously intelligent guy, and yet he dismisses all 9/11 suspicions out of hand. Sorry, that part does not compute. I voted for him, and what took office was a changeling, a Bush with savvy and color. Now, we can campaign to expose to the public, (vets, teachers, auto workers, truckers, cabbies, machine operators, housewives, you know, US) the many anomalies of 9/11, and leave to each citizen what it is that pisses him off the most, or we can keep debating what is at present unknowable, and present THAT to John Q. Public and see if he bites. I am John Q. Public. If our beloved government produces films of an airliner clearly going into the Pentagon, that won’t convince me that 9/11 was really bin Laden’s doing. Why? Because there is, all together, such a MOUNTAIN of fishy stuff associated with this crime. I can fall out of bed dead drunk, hit my head on the floor, go into a coma, and still have enough IQ left over to see 9/11 for what it was.Only seriously stupid people can’t have suspicions about 9/11. Since most folks aren’t that stupid, what gives? Myth has made us stupid. We are primed with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy. Religion contributes it’s part to unconfirmable facts working their way into public myth. Then, there is all the flag waving, and all the criticism of other countries, countries we’ve never been to, but have been goaded into hating.All that burden of MYTH on our backs MAKES US STUPID, and CLOSES OUR MINDS. If no plane in a shallow hole in Shanksville can’t generate suspicion, how is this esoteric argument about high explosives supposed to work? Now, I personally enjoy all the minutia, but I feel it separates the common man from a cancer cure, nutritious food, free energy, happier home and work lives, paid up mortgages, etc. Yes, ladies and germs, the Evil Ones have played a major part in our histories of human misery. They must be exorcized. But how do we get our body politic to kick out a tumor we’ve grown to love and trust. That tumor will kill us in the end. THE ANSWER: COMMUNICATE! Not with the choir, bone-heads, with the congregation. They’re the ones with the real pull. The Evil Ones have serious power. Their only rival is the common man and woman. Martial THOSE forces, or give up, nerd-balls. A wedding band can’t play jazz tunes all afternoon, and hope to have a rollicking good wedding reception. You have to give people something THEY can relate to. Before you prepare that exotic marinade, you have to hook and land the fish. (Metaphors, yipes.) Seriously, the Evil Ones don’t seem to be stopping with the false flag stunts. It’s up to all of us to tell them to STOP!

  5. Below are some worthy quotes from Sir Karl Popper with ideas that might be helpful to our process of critical discussion, copied from

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

    * If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence in favor of a theory which, if approached critically, would have been refuted.
    o The Poverty of Historicism (1957) Ch. 29 The Unity of Method

    * Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
    o Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (1972)

    * There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions. … It obviously endangers the freedom and the objectivity of our discussion if we attack a person instead of attacking an opinion or, more precisely, a theory.
    o “The Importance of Critical Discussion” in On the Barricades: Religion and Free Inquiry in Conflict (1989) by Robert Basil

    * When I speak of reason or rationalism, all I mean is the conviction that we can learn through criticism of our mistakes and errors, especially through criticism by others, and eventually also through self-criticism. A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right; someone who is willing to learn from others — not by simply taking over another’s opinions, but by gladly allowing others to criticize his ideas and by gladly criticizing the ideas of others. The emphasis here is on the idea of criticism or, to be more precise, critical discussion. The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter; but he thinks that only critical discussion can give us the maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgement of it.
    o “On Freedom” in All Life is Problem Solving (1999)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

  6. “we don’t claim that nanothermite was not involved. We explain why it cannot possibly have blown the buildings apart, pulverized the concrete or destroyed the steel.”
    “The Gospel of Nanothermite has given the incendiary properties of thermite a set of new miraculous powers: in its nano-state it becomes “Super Thermite” – a high-explosive that pulverized hundreds of thousands of tons of building materials in no more than 10 seconds.”

    That is sarcasm and a strawman. Dr. Harrit et al, never said nano-thermite was a “high” explosive or that it was responsible for the pulverization of the concrete [although, in some form, it could have - you don't know all there is to know]. Niels has said that that he does not know exactly how it was used but that it should not be in the WTC dust. He has said that nano-thermite can destroy steel structures – which is true – by cutting the steel.

    “The paper, said to have been peer-reviewed”
    Said to have been? If you think nano-thermite might have been involved, why do you disparage Harrit et al and those who believe them? They have no reason to lie and you have no good reason to doubt them.

    “alleged to be “an explosive form”
    You are mistaken. Nano-thermite can be engineered to be an explosive.

    “Observations by first responders of apparent molten metal – thought to be molten iron”
    “My best guess, therefore, has been that it may have been lead flowing”
    Why do you question the presence of molten iron?

    • Go back and reread our article. If you can’t process information better than this, you are not worth time and space. We quote A&E and David Ray Griffin on the “explosive” properties of nanothermite. We even observe that that the Rock Creek Free Press made the same point in an article in 2009. But the “hard science” group has refused to budge, which is complete unprofessional and unscientific. And I have had enough of your endless reiterations of the same mistaken and ignorant posts. We all know where you stand, Chris. Enough is enough!

      • Chris Sarns
        August 31, 2011 – 12:57 am(Edit)

        “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which is led by Richard Gage, has been ceaselessly promoting the nanothermite discovery as the “smoking gun” of 9/11, and calling the substance a “high explosive”.

        That is not true. AE911Truth said:
        “Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust”

        Nowhere in the RCFP article does it say “high explosives” except when referring to TNT.

        David Ray Griffin misstated when he said “High explosives, such as RDX or nanothermite,”
        You should direct your criticism to Dr. Griffin and only Dr. Griffin.

        Niels Harrit el al did not claim that nano-thermite was a “high explosive” nor did they claim that nano-thermite was the sole cause of the destruction of the Trade Towers.

        Your article is based on a strawman!
        ______________________________

        Chris, I mistakenly deleted this because I thought it was another repeat of your earlier claims. But I reread it and am posting it now. I reject the “strawman” claim on multiple grounds, including that the belief that nanothermite is explosive is probably more widely shared in the 9/11 Truth community than any other single proposition (about WTC-7, about the Pentagon, on and on). As we explain in “Is ’9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”,

        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. . . .

        “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.”

        This article clearly endorses the thesis that the chips that were found in the dust were “unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive. . . .”, where the phrase “can be formulated as as a high explosive”, I take it, means that it is BOTH an exotic high-tech explosive AND can be formulated as a high-explosive, where we address both issues. Nanothermite is NOT a high explosive AND even toothpaste can also be combined with high explosives.

        In your zeal to defend the myth of explosive nanothermite, you also overlook that the “hard science” guys have been resistant to any concessions on this point. Kevin Ryan even published a rebuttal, “The Explosiveness of Nanothermite”, which we also discuss, on the day Mark’s “Nanothermite Challenge” expired, which was a public gesture of contempt. You need to give this more thought. Is your loyalty to a certain group or to science, evidence, and truth?

        • Jim,

          If you keep making the same false claim I must respond with the same rebuttal.

          “I reject the “strawman” claim on multiple grounds, including that the belief that nanothermite is explosive”

          It has been confirmed that nano-thermite can be an explosive. The red/gray chips contain organic material like what is described below. By adding organic material which will create gas and make it explosive, the amount of nano-thermite needed to cut a column is reduced.

          “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry.”

          “Two of the metal oxides are tungsten trioxide and iron(III) oxide, both of which are of interest in the field of energetic materials. In addition, due to the large availability of organically functionalized silanes, the silicon oxide phase can be used as a unique way of introducing organic additives into the bulk metal oxide materials. These organic additives can cause the generation of gas upon ignition of the materials, therefore resulting in a composite material that can perform pressure/volume work.”
          (Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC- 204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004)

          “we don’t claim that nanothermite was not involved. We explain why it cannot possibly have blown the buildings apart, pulverized the concrete or destroyed the steel.”

          That’s a strawman. Harrit et al do not make that claim. They specifically say that they don’t know how the nano-thermite was used but can be used to bring down steel buildings [by cutting columns and beams]. They also say that other kinds of explosives may have been used.

          David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage may have been incorrect in calling the nano-thermite found in the WTC dust a “high explosive”. So what? They should leave out the “high” in the future but that is really just semantics. The point is; nano-thermite with organic material is explosive.

          • Chris, There is nothing here. I don’t understand what you think you are doing. What is it? Some misplaced sense of loyalty to the “hard science” group? Your posts are truly pointless. I deleted it because it was repetitious and raises no issue that has not been addressed already. You are simply unwilling to admit you are wrong. That–and this post–does nothing to show that you are right. Unrelenting, yes; right, no. I can’t have you posting this drivel forever. I will ask Mark if he things you are onto something, but I already know the answer.

          • Jim,
            You say nano-thermite cannot be an explosive and I have presented evidence to the contrary. You are entitled to your opinion. No worries. My loyalty is to the facts as I see them.

            Can we agree that the only reason for the nano-thermite to be in the dust is that it was somehow used in the demolition of the three towers?

          • This is incredible. After all of Mark’s research and reports about his specific findings, you act as if this is a matter of personal opinion? You clearly do not understand the question, because to pulverize concrete or destroy steel would require detonation velocities far in excess of those possessed by nanothermite. And your capacity for rigorous reasoning is nil. Yes, we can agree that, assuming there were bona fide nanothermite chips in the dust, they should not have been there, assuming that the dust was prior to the clean up, when it appears to have been used. Nanothermite may have been used to prep those buildings by cutting steel. No one denies that. But it has less than 13% the power of TNT and cannot have been the source of the energy that blew these buildings apart and converted most of them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.

          • “it [nanothermite] has less than 13% the power of TNT and cannot have been the source of the energy that blew these buildings apart and converted most of them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.”

            Agreed, but what blew the building apart and pulverized the concrete is not the question, it’s whether or not nano-thermite can be engineered to be an explosive.

            This was Mr. Hightower’s original claim:
            “By itself, nanothermite cannot have been the sole agent of demolition – it was only another “helper.” By itself, therefore, nanothermite cannot be “explosive evidence,” as AE911 Truth maintains.”

            Mr Hightower is saying that because nano-thermite is not a “high explosive” and did not do all the destruction, it cannot be called an explosive at all. This is not so. Nano-thermite can be emgineered to be an explosive so it can be referred to as “explosive evidence”. However, I agree that AT911Truth should refrain from using the term “high explosive”. The proper terminology is “high-tech explosive”.

            “assuming there were bona fide nanothermite chips in the dust”

            You are questioning the honesty and integrity of professionals who have no reason to lie about what they found in the WTC dust. I guess that’s the difference.beetween you and me. I believe them and you don’t. And that my friend, is a matter of opinion.

          • No one has to have “lied”, which is a popular misconception. People make false statements all the time, which they make sincerely since they believe them. Those are not lies, which require making an assertion that you know to be false but do so anyway with the intention to deceive. I do not believe that to be true in this case. Their exaggerated reports about nanothermite appear to have arisen because of errors made early on in Steve Jones’ research, as Mark explicitly notes in “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”

            If you want proof that their research has been shoddy, pay attention to our discussion of Kevin Ryan, “The Explosiveness of Nanothermite”, which does not remotely address the problem but, if anything, makes matters even worse by appearing to REINFORCE the false claims that have been made about its ability to demolish the Twin Towers, which may be the most widely held belief in the 9/11 movement. And we have also observed (several times) that even toothpaste and breakfast cereal can become explosive if they are combined with explosives, which is true but trivial.

            The myth of explosive nanothermite has sidetracked research on whatever actually was responsible for the destruction of the towers. We acknowledge that some, like Neils Harrit, have been more qualified in their claims, but no one from the “hard science” group has acknowledged their mistake. As Steve Fahrney reports, A&E won’t even pursue testing for explosives, which is where we have been led by situations like the one we are in, where the movement has been placed in jeopardy. And you, I am sorry to say, are doing further damage to 9/11 Truth by attempting to perpetuate the illusion.

          • The paper “Nanoscale Aluminum-Metal Oxide (Thermite) Reactions for Application in Energetic Materials” cited in the above article, and which you can access at

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/53011584/Klapotke

            describes an approach for adding organics to nanothermite, that although it generates gas, it actually lowers the detonation velocity.

            “A further development on the synthesis-dependent application of iron
            oxide thermite is that of Clapsaddle et. al. [26]. Tailoring of energetic properties
            was obtained by the addition of organo-silicon precursors to the sol leading to
            aerogel oxidizers containing any desired percentage of organic-functionalized
            silica. The silica functioned to reduce the combustion velocity, and the organic
            addition to increase gas release upon combustion. The research is still in the
            initial stages, but the thermites may have application in the propulsive and
            gas-generating fields.

            I call it “flatuous nanothermite.”

          • Jim,

            “The myth of explosive nanothermite”

            Why do you persist in making that statement when it has been shown to be incorrect?

            “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry.”

          • “A&E won’t even pursue testing for explosives, which is where we have been led by situations like the one we are in, where the movement has been placed in jeopardy.”

            This is a strawman. AE911Truth does not have any WTC dust.

            the movement has been placed in jeopardy? Get serious. This is a tempest in a teapot.

            Why don’t YOU get some dust and test for explosives? All you do is badmouth others for not doing what you could do. This is not helpful.

          • Mr. Hightower,

            I am aware that silica slows the reaction and is probably used as a buffering agent.

            That does not negate the fact that nano-thermite can be engineered to be an explosive.

            “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, . . . “

  7. Almost everything you write and say bespeaks your duplicity and obfuscation. Ergo, there is no need for me to “explain presisely” — and no need for me to “bluff.”

    • Well, “Dickel” rhymes with “pickle” and, if I were in your predicament, I might do the same. You, Calvin, are in a pickle, which is why you have to bluff!

  8. fetzer, you’re a fed & shill — and anybody with half a brain knows it.

    • Well, why don’t you support that cheap remark with some proof. Explain precisely what I have wrong and how you know and we can discuss it. I am calling your bluff.

      • “Explain precisely what I have wrong and how you know and we can discuss it.”

        You did not respond to my post above so I’ll repeat the facts that prove you wrong.

        “But to suggest that the American military has a “secret recipe” that converts iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite into a high explosive when this claim is contradicted by the open literature doesn’t make any sense.”

        Nano-thermite can be tailored to be an explosive. It doesn’t have to be a “high explosive” because the super heated molten iron does most of the cutting.

        “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry. A novel sol-gel approach has proven successful in preparing metal oxide/silicon oxide nanocomposites in which the metal oxide is the major component. By introducing a fuel metal, such as aluminum, into the metal oxide/silicon oxide matrix, energetic materials based on thermite reactions can be fabricated. Two of the metal oxides are tungsten trioxide and iron(III) oxide, both of which are of interest in the field of energetic materials. In addition, due to the large availability of organically functionalized silanes, the silicon oxide phase can be used as a unique way of introducing organic additives into the bulk metal oxide materials. These organic additives can cause the generation of gas upon ignition of the materials, therefore resulting in a composite material that can perform pressure/volume work. Furthermore, the desired organic functionality is well dispersed throughout the composite material on the nanoscale with the other components, and is therefore subject to the same increased reaction kinetics. The resulting nanoscale distribution of all the ingredients displays energetic properties not seen in its microscale counterparts due to the expected increase of mass transport rates between the reactants. The synthesis and characterization of iron(III) oxide/organosilicon oxide nanocomposites and their performance as energetic materials will be discussed.” (Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC- 204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004)

        * * * * *

        “If such immense quantities of nanothermite were used to blow up the Twin Towers, then why didn’t we see tremendous bursts of blinding light all over two those buildings as they were destroyed and largely converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust?”

        Jon Cole demonstrated that “immense quantities” would not be necessary. He made up some thermate, because nano-thermite is not available to the public, and invented a device that cut thru a steel I beam using a small amount of thermate.
        Start at 8:16 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

        “unless this new version of nanothermite can be deployed without emitting the characteristic dazzling light (which was not observed on 9/11), there appears to be little point to grasping after straws, which seems to be your trademark.”

        Several witnesses saw flashes of light and NIST acknowledges “. . . a very bright white flame”

        “The intense fire in the northeast corner opening of the 81st floor is still present. An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph in Figure 9–44 a very bright white flame. The brightness of the flame, along with the white smoke, suggests that some type of metal is burning. Metal combustion is known to generate much higher flame temperatures than hydrocarbon combustion, and, as a result, to burn much brighter. Aluminum oxide melts at high temperatures [2072 °C] that are not typically reached in normal fires. There were limited quantities of other metals on the aircraft that might also burn. Whatever the metal, the ignition of a metal fire is an indication of the significant heating of the debris that took place in the northeast corner of the 81st floor due to the prolonged intense burning in this area following the aircraft impact.
        Pg 344 [pdf pg 48]
        http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909088
        * * * * *

        You have no science to back up your suggestion that plasmoids or mini-nukes could have been used to destroy the Trade Towers and building 7. It’s just baseless speculation. A mini-nuke would vaporize the entire WTC complex so even suggesting that as a possibility destroys the credibility of the person making that suggestion.

        • Chris, You are boring everyone to tears. I have already replied to this. I have ask you for the quantitative data on the explosive velocities for the products you are claiming to exist. Unless they are substantially greater than 895 m/s, it cannot have pulverized the concrete, destroyed the steel, or blown the buildings to kingdom come. I have explained all of this MANY TIMES, yet you have been completely unresponsive.

          I have explained why I believe the flow of molten metal from that corner of the building–which was not observed anywhere else on either of the towers–was coming from that specific location. The Fuji Bank had an enormous array of batteries there as a source of back-up energy. That suggests those batteries were the source of the flow, which should have been present all over both towers if your theory were true.

          As for the blinding light, I don’t think so. Yes, there are some bright flashes when the explosives (or energy beams) are doing their thing, but not all over as would have to be the case if massive quantities of nano-thermite had been used. Thanks for your posts, but unless you have something new, I am not going to put up any more. Your cause is lost, but you are unwilling to admit it. That makes for repetition and boredom.

          • Your superior attitude denotes attitude, not superiority.

            You ignore the evidence presented and ask for specifics you know are not in the reference I posted.

            What part of; “It doesn’t have to be a “high explosive” because the super heated molten iron does most of the cutting.” don’t you understand?

            The molten iron and concrete establish temperatures that can only be explained by the use of thermite. Your suggestion that it might have been a mini-nuke is absurd and you know it. A mini-nuke would have vaporized the entire WTC complex.

            It is not necessary to establish that nano-thermite pulverized the concrete; something else may have done that, like a combination of nano-thermite and other explosives. There is no way for us to know all the possibilities.

            As for the batteries, this is the same argument made at the JREF forum to deny the existence of molted iron/steel. Are you trying to infer that there was no molten iron/steel?

            BTW: Lead, like aluminum, glows silver when molten.

            I pointed out that it would not take “massive quantities” of nano-thermite but you disregarded that. The primary cuts in the core area would not be visible from the exterior and once the demolition began, the debris would have hidden the bright light. This was a faked collapse so they made every effort to hide the explosions. You cannot possibly know all there is to know about how to reduce the noise and the bright light.

            You have adopted a number of tactics and arguments used at the JREF forum.
            1) Adopt a superior attitude, talk down to and insult your opponent.
            2) Accuse you opponent of what you are doing. [unresponsive]
            3) Find reasons not to believe the existence of nano-thermite in the dust.
            4) Try to say the falling molten metal was not iron/steel.
            5) When your position has been proven false, act superior, become indignant and refuse to respond directly to the facts presented.

          • Well, you don’t pay any attention, you are extremely repetitive, and you obviously have a closed mind. Other than that, I would think everyone here would be impressed with your posts. You HAVE been unresponsive to my request for detonation velocity data, which you have not given. We have already discussed the possibility that perhaps nanothermite could be combined with other explosives to make it explosive–which, as Mark observed, is also true of his breakfast cereal. We are not denying the existence of nanothermite chips in the dust, as I have also stated many times. And you most certainly have NOT proven us mistaken–in any respect. You can’t be reading my posts, or you would not have missed this one and make these blunders:

            Jim Fetzer
            August 27, 2011 – 5:46 pm(Edit)

            Well, we don’t claim that nanothermite was not involved. We explain why it cannot possibly have blown the buildings apart, pulverized the concrete or destroyed the steel. I have addressed the flow from the 80th floor of the South Tower many times. (See, for example, the slide show, “Was 9/11 an ‘inside job’?”, which is archived at http://911scholars.org. While you are there, check out the upper-left corner and take a look at “Why doubt 9/11?”, where I summarized 20 major findings that refute the official account.) What is odd about that flow is that it is unique to that location, which suggested to me that there was something distinctive about it.

            Fuji Bank had a massive array of batteries stored there as back-up for its clients’ records in case there was an interruption in the electrical supply. My best guess, therefore, has been that it may have been lead flowing, which has a very low melting point compared with aluminum and especially steel. Notice, in particular, that we do not witness these flows elsewhere in the buildings. So if nanothermite was used all over those towers, we would expect similar flows at random. But they aren’t there. And it was not an effect of the jet fuel, most of which burned up in those spectacular fire-balls in the first fifteen or twenty seconds.

          • Mr. Hightower,

            I agree with Jon Cole that nano-thermite was probably used to pre-weaken many of the columns and then [nano enhanced?] explosives took them out. I would go a step further and surmise that this is the source of most of the iron microspheres. The high explosives atomized much of the molten iron from the nano-thermite and the steel that it melted.

            We can only guess at the exact process but we do agree that the Towers did not pancake, they were taken down with explosives.

          • Or some other source of enormous energy. This is your most reasonable post. I think we three all agree.

        • Below is an email that I received from Jon Cole on 7/27/2011. Initially he quotes the last paragraph from my previous email to Niels Harrit and him and many others, which you will also find below. At the very bottom you will find Niels Harrit’s calculation showing that 143,000 metric tons of thermitic material (of 10% iron oxide content) would have been necessary to have been present in one WTC Twin Tower prior to destruction in order to account for the iron-rich spheres present in the dust produced by its destruction, assuming that thermitic material was the source of the iron-rich spheres.

          BEGIN EMAIL FROM JON COLE OF 7/27/2011

          [Quoting T. Mark Hightower]
          “I would really like to see Jonathan Cole do a calculation of how much
          regular thermate would have been needed, acting alone, to bring down a
          twin tower, based upon extrapolating his experimental work with
          thermate.”

          It is my personal opinion…opinion,…. that thermitic material did not act alone to bring down those towers but perhaps were used as some sort of preweakeing. I believe that other explosives could have also been used to bring them down, which would explain the observations and downward motion.

          But I don’t really know, nor do I think that anyone else does at this point, unless they were involved somehow.

          I do know that nano-thermite was found in the dust (along with iron microspheres) and that it should not have been there.

          The key that most do agree on, is that the official fire induced gravitational collapse story cannot be true because it does not address the evidence and defies fundamental laws.

          -JC

          —–Original Message—–
          From: T Mark Hightower
          Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 11:21 AM
          To: Niels Harrit
          Cc: Jon Cole; many others
          Subject: Re: Thermitic materials get serious

          Niels,

          Thank you for the calculation,

          I have checked it and I find no errors.

          I have not yet traced all the figures you use to the sources you cite,
          but I plan to do that.

          When you say “let us fancy a thermitic material with an iron oxide
          content of 10 %,” this would be equivalent to having a mixture
          consisting of 13.3 % thermite and the rest other ingredients. When you
          say the thermitic material could be made as high as 50 % iron oxide,
          that would correspond to a mixture consisting of 66.7 % thermite and the
          rest other ingredients. Thermite alone is 75 % iron oxide.

          What is striking to me is how large the results of these calculations
          are.

          The implication of the calculation to you is that depending on the iron
          oxide content of the thermitic material (10 % to 50 %), the total amount
          of thermitic material present in a WTC Twin Tower prior to destruction
          would have been anywhere from 143,000 tons to 143,000/5 = 29,000 tons,
          respectively.

          Take the lower number as more realistic. This would amount to 29,000
          tons/110 floors = 260 tons per floor.

          Does it seem realistic that the perpetrators would have loaded the
          building with an average of 260 tons of destructive agent per floor?

          My own previous calculation of the quantity of conventional high
          explosives, acting alone, necessary to bring down a twin tower was on
          the order of hundreds of tons. But the results of your calculation
          suggest that the thermitic material involved would have been on the
          order of hundred of times greater than this.

          I would really like to see Jonathan Cole do a calculation of how much
          regular thermate would have been needed, acting alone, to bring down a
          twin tower, based upon extrapolating his experimental work with
          thermate.

          Mark

          On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 01:38 +0200, Niels Harrit wrote:
          > Mr. Hightower.
          >
          > This is meant as an order-of-magnitude estimate only. Every assessment will
          > be conservative so that the final volume of applied thermitic material
          > should be a safe lowest-limit.
          >
          > The RJ Lee Group carried out an investigation of the WTC dust very early
          > following 9/11.[1] Their reports were published in 2003[2] and in 2004.[3] A
          > wealth of findings therein indicated extreme temperatures during and
          > preceeding the collapse.[4] But most importantly, in the present context,
          > the RJ Lee group found a whopping 5.87% content of iron-rich spheres in the
          > dust (see Table 3, p.28 in the 2003 report). In the same table a 0.04% is
          > reported as the expected value in normal building dust. So 5.83% of the
          > finding must be considered abnormal.
          >
          > According to the RJ Lee group, the dust was pushed through pedestrian
          > tunnels that connected WTC2 to the adjacent Deutsche Bank Building at 130
          > Liberty Street where RJ Lee Group took samples.[1] If any change in
          > composition due to gravity occured during this event, it must have reduced
          > the relative amount of iron-rich spheres present in the dust, since iron has
          > a density of 7.9 g/cm3, while that of e.g. concrete is much lower, as it can
          > vary from 2,.3 to 3.4 g/cm3. That is, a content of 5.83% iron-rich spheres
          > is a lower limit for the dust produced at the WTC2 site.
          >
          > The only explanation for the presence of iron-rich spheres in these
          > quantities is the occurrence of thermitic processes (paint, incendiaries,
          > explosives) preceeding the collapses or during the collapses of the Twin
          > Towers.
          >
          > The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2
          > million tons of building materials were pulverized during the whole WTC
          > event.[5] However, the lowest and most reliable estimate of the mass of one
          > of the towers (WTC1 or WTC2) is 288.000 metric tons.[6] This is the ”raw”
          > building. To this, let us add 50.000 tons, accounting for everything you put
          > into such a tower, but subtract the 90.000 tons (too high, conservative)
          > structural steel. Then, we end up with ca. 250.000 tons of pulverizable
          > material per tower (WTC1 or WTC2).
          >
          > In order to stay on the absolutely safe side, let us subtract a further
          > 50.000 tonnes and say that the RJ Lee Group sampling was representative of
          > 200.000 tonnes pulverized tower.
          >
          > This means, that there were produced at least 0.0583 x 200000 = 11.660
          > tonnes iron-rich spheres per tower. The iron-rich spheres contained varying
          > trace amounts of aluminum and silicon (which in itself is an unambiguous
          > proof of their thermitic origin). Since no overall quantitative estimate of
          > these contaminants exist, let us lower the amount of pure iron formed in
          > thermitic processes during and preceeding the collapse of one tower to
          > 10.000 tons.
          >
          > As I suggested, let us fancy a thermitic material with an ironoxide content
          > of 10%. This is arbitrary. You may substitute this number with any other
          > below, say, 50%.
          >
          > The molecular mass of Fe2O3 is 159.7, iron is 55.8 each. That is, ferric
          > oxide produces 70% elemental iron upon reduction.
          >
          > So one kilo of the thermitic material can produce a maximum of 70 g iron.
          >
          > If we assume, that ALL the thermitic material should react to form iron
          > spheres (please notice, that this is another highly conservative condition),
          > RJ Lee Groups observation implies that:
          >
          > (10000 x 1000 x 1000)/70 = 143.000.000 kg =
          >
          > 143.000 metric tons thermitic material
          >
          > was present in WTC2 prior to collapse.
          >
          > Of course, it is five times less, if the iron oxide content is 50%.
          >
          > Still, it’s a lot.
          >
          > Find the error!
          >
          > NH
          >
          > ——————————————————————————–
          >
          > [1]
          > http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Microsoft-Dynamics-SL/RJ-Lee-Group/Scientific-Firm-Grows-Government-Business-More-Than-100-Percent-with-Accounting-System/4000005885
          >
          > [2]
          > http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf
          >
          > [3]
          > http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf
          >
          > [4] http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
          >
          > [5] http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/wtc/wtc.pdf (and p.10 in the RJ Lee
          > Group 2004 report).
          >
          > [6] http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf
          >

  9. Boys, boys, the BEST is the enemy of the GOOD. You’re all striving to be intellectual heroes, handing over a completed package to the general public so that they can sit up and say, “yup’, and put a stamp of approval on your best efforts. Traditionally, it’s politicians who are suffused with hubris, but now you guys are guilty as well. The Evil Ones are not going to admit to the techniques they employed until cornered in court and offered some kind of deal to talk, if then. If one of you hits the nail on the head, exactly exactly, that doesn’t mean that all egos at the table will be assuaged or quieted. Understand this. 9/11 is a window into the various cults of power that pine for world domination. They have been a bane upon human existence and our general well-being for centuries, maybe longer. If the common man were to use 9/11 to understand how their loved ones died unnecessarily of cancer, because of the FIX put in place by one of the power cults, maybe he’d react. Who knows? Get your nuts removed in VietNam, your skin burnt off in Iraq, just to benefit a power cult, understand that and maybe you’ll pay attention. 9/11 is the key that opens the door to all this horror that WE, the USELESS EATERS, wouldn’t do to each other. We can lay MOST of this evil at the feet of the secret power cults. What matter, 57% Illuminati, 43% Zionists. What matter, 4th generation nukes 70%, thermate 12%, energy weapons 10%, airplanes 7%, bubblegum and rubber bands 3%. Any moron can see that it was an inside job. Our fighter planes weren’t misdirected by an Israeli general. OUR PEOPLE HAD to be involved. We won’t kill the dragon without Vets and commoners rallying to the side of righteousness, but standing in the way are the myths that, if deconstructed, make us cry. However, if we take the Evil Ones to the brink, they might do ANYTHING! SOoooo…they have tried to distance themselves from an apocalyptic justice by doing ALLLLL of the above. If we, the people open the can of worms, and start at 9/11 and go right on down the line, all the power elite everywhere could be doomed. They will do anything to keep that from happening, and when planning 9/11, they DID put in place every possible confusion they could think of. That includes using ALL those different destructive methods. No energy weapons, huh? How about those circles of various diameters cut onto the roof of building six. How about those melted engines and strangely disfigured cars, parked blocks away from the WTC? Keep on debating. Ten years from now no-one will care enough to act for justice. Who today will go to bat for justice in the murder of JFK?

    • You may well be right, Quahog King. The problem is that most of the 9/11 Truth community has embraced the vastly simpler and empirically false theory that the heavy lifting involved nanothermite. So we have to move this huge obstacle to further research out of the way and place the role of thermite in perspective in order to move forward. Most of what you say sounds right, but further scientific research is necessary to sort out how it was done.

  10. I’ve read that there were elevated levels of nuclear fission byproducts as well as nanothermite following 9/11. Do we know how reliable that information really is?

    • Well, my impression is that those elevated levels of tritium and of deuterium are solid–but I would have to track down the sources. Plus there were problems with cell phones and computerized equipment that day, not to mention the patterns of leukemia and other radiation-related illnesses that seem to be epidemic for those who were first responders. Here’s a 10 December 2010 article about it:

      “9/11 first responders dying of radiation exposure illnesses”
      http://presscore.ca/nbg/index.php?entry=entry101210-074545

      In addition to my interview with Dimitri, I have an interview with Dr. Ed Ward, M.D., on 26 February 2010, in which he discusses the use of nukes at the World Trade Center. That interview and the one with Khalezov on 21 January 2011 can be found here:

      http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/search?q=Nukes

      • I have worked alongside Dr. Wood and read all of her research and find it hard to believe that Jim Fetzer is making the comments that he is making here. He has seen everything that Dr. Wood has researched through her website and has bought and read her book (see Ch. 17, P. 372-6). How can he have this following information and still entertain ideas that mini-nukes, masers, phasers, and plasmoids had anything to do with turning over a million tons of steel and cement into dust is beyond scientific explanation. Could it be that Jim Fetzer (see http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/9-11—finding-the-truth/16341477) is muddying the waters so that no one looks at Dr. Wood’s work and just throws up their hands thinking that scientific explanation of the 43 facts pointed out in Dr. Wood’s book are not knowable and understandable? He has been using the same masers, phasers, and plasmoids line since 2006!! Wake up and see the cover-up!!

        http://wheredidthetowersgo.com

        • Well, this is one more in an endless string of unwarranted attacks from members of (what can only be described as) the Judy Wood cult. I have used the phrase, “mini-nukes (3rd or 4th generation, fission or fusion), lasers, masers, plasmoides, and (other) directed energy weapons”, where lasers and masers are DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS.

          Just google “DEPS” and you will find that “The Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) fosters research and development in directed energy (DE), including high energy laser (HEL) and high power microwave (HPM) technologies, for national defense and civilian applications through professional communication and education.”

          An elderly woman with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics explained at the conclusion of the Madison conference (where I gave Judy Wood an unprecedented THREE HOURS to present her views) that, until she had watched Judy’s presentation, she had not realized that masers had to have been involved. So spare me more of these stupid attacks.

          I am not the President of the Judy Wood Fan Club, but the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. We consider the full range of alternative explanations, from fires and gravity to exotic accelerants and on to directed energy and nuclear devices, to borrow the categories used by Dwain Deets during his analysis of WTC-7 on “The Real Deal” today.

          As I explained to Matt Naus during an exchange about “Confessions of a 9/11 Activist”, I did more to promote awareness of Judy’s work than anyone else in history, including fifteen or more interviews on my radio shows, publishing a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), and the Madison conference. So spare me. I gave at the office!

    • The nuclear reaction byproducts report is from the US Geological Survey: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/WTCchemistrytable.html
      Dr Ed Ward analyzes this data here: http://www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm
      Dr Ward submitted 7.5 grams of WTC dust to an independent laboratory, where the high tritium levels were determined. Neither Dr Ward nor the the thermite promoters can provide a chain of custody, proving the source of their samples to be the WTC (to my knowledge). No independent laboratory analyzed the samples where nanothermite evidence was claimed to be discovered, It was only analyzed by the promoters of the nanothermite theory.

      There were radiation specific cancers reported, consistent with Hiroshima survivors. Radiation specific means no other possible cause.

      For objective evidence, nukes prevail. The nanothermite theory is entirely based on personal faith in its (well financed) promoters.

      PS Steal this label: “9/11 Truth Hijackers” for those who use the truth to promote lies like one world government.

  11. What if nanothermite was used in combination with small, clean fission weapons? Perhaps the nanothermite was used to cut the supports (but remained non-explosive) while the small nukes provided the explosions. The article makes a good point about not overplaying one’s hand, though.

    • YES–that is entirely possible, as I see it. I think much of the resistance to Mark’s discoveries has been the invalid inference that we were therefore tossing out those chips entirely. That is not the case and what you describe–at this point in time–sounds very reasonable to me. Thanks for making this point explicit.

  12. Despite the evil of the Ashkenazi Zionists, they are not the top of the pyramid. The world central banking system is a function of the Bank of Rome, via branches like the Bank of England and Federal Reserve. The Zionists are a diversionary tactic, since the Jesuit controlled banking system can be overthrown, beginning with global awareness. If we fight the wrong enemy, the other side wins. Even the Rothschilds are mere “keepers of the Papal treasury.” Considering the Jesuit history of successful assassinations, the Rothschilds take orders from the Jesuits.

    Another diversionary tactic, in 9/11 truth, is ignoring the significance of tritium levels 55 times normal reported by the USGS. That, along with many other phenomena, can only mean the use of 4th generation nuclear devices. By using high grade plutonium, very little measurable gamma radiation is involved. Plutonium emits alpha radiation, not measured by standard Geiger counters in 2001.

    Directed Energy Weapons are equally ludicrous with nanothermite. Vaporizing the WTC buildings in about 15 seconds would require Star Trek level electricity generation. The Soviets used DEW to vaporize a bridge to China in 1969, but it took all day. Consider what it takes to cook a turkey in a microwave and multiply by the tetrawatts it would take to vaporize the twin towers in 15 seconds! ALL of the evidence presented at Dr Judy Wood’s website fits nuclear demolition phenomena, better than DEW!. Even Hurricane Erin was conveniently positioned to act as a giant vacuum cleaner. Erin prevented any evidence of nuclear demolition from being transported to Europe by prevailing winds.

    • This is a fascinating commentary from someone who has given this a great deal of thought. Russ is not the only one to have advanced the thesis that the Rothschilds “run the world”, as it might be said, and that the Vatican may have been involved. The problem, as I see it, is that the evidence that we have available points in the direction of profound Israeli complicity, which extends from those who were instrumental in transferring the World Trade Center into the hands of Larry Silverstein to the role of Mossad assets like Urban Moving Systems to the “art students” who were tracking the alleged “hijackers” long before 9/11, and on to the so-called “Dancing Israelis”. Key players from Michael Chertoff to Dov Zakheim and the neo-cons in the Department of Defense all point in the same direction, which leads to Tel Aviv, not to Rome. So while Russ might be right, the weight of the evidence suggests he is wrong. And there is a lot of evidence of this kind.

      His comments about tritium and the possible use of 4th generation nuclear weapons and against the use of directed energy weapons are more instructive, in my opinion. As I understand it, elevated levels of deuterium were also found, which is also taken to be indicative of the use of nukes. I would be grateful for Russ to pursue this further here, because this is the very point where I have the most to learn. While I am very skeptical that Dimitri Khalezov has it right (150kt bombs beneath each of the three buildings)–where my interview with him on “The Real Deal” can be found at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/search?q=Dimitri –the conjecture that Hurricane Erin might have served the function of “a giant vacuum cleaner” is brilliant–and may well be true! I have tried to figure out why Judy thinks Erin was so important, but I remain baffled to this day. If Russ could elaborate about how these nukes could have affected the different buildings, the “toasted cars”, and all that, I would be most grateful.

      • Thanks for your interest, Jim. You are the first researcher to seriously consider my Hurricane Erin vacuum cleaner theory. I spent a year analyzing 9/11 demolition theories, as well as having years of personal contact with the evil network that made 9/11 possible. A draft copy of my story is at: http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/imafreeman-1051917-aapres3/
        Feel free to contact me at yahoo, itsafreeman6.

        Every intelligent criminal and corrupt person recognized 9/11 as a false flag operation immediately. The lies in our society are perpetuated by every individual who perceives benefit in the corruption. That’s a large portion of the population, including a boss I know!

        The USGS tritium levels report is the smoking gun of nuclear demolition. That is a clinical measurement, as valid as a Geiger counter reading.

        One possible reason for the massive effort to cover up of evidence of WTC nuclear demolition is the possibility the nukes were made at Dimona, Israel. That location would be more secure and less likely of leaks. Dimona is a plutonium plant. Why not use the highest grade fuel possible? The late Joe Vialls attributed the Bali false flag operation to a Dimona, plutonium mini-nuke: http://regainyourbrain.org/regain_articles/9-11%20ARTICLES%20list_files/9-11%20INFO/Bali%20Micro%20Nuke.htm

        I agree that multiple mini-nukes fits the basement explosions, etc. Dimitri Khalezov’s single device per building does not fit for me, either. Dr Ed Ward’s multiple nukes makes more sense to me. The Twin Towers could have been finally blasted by devices larger than micro-nukes, though. That fits.

        Building Seven does not fit nuclear demolition! All other destruction at the WTC does. Building Seven is a “grassy knoll” ruse! If mini-nukes were used in Building Seven, they were not used in a capacity to pulverize the building, but bring it down in a manner similar to a controlled demolition. From a nuclear demolition perspective, Building Seven should be considered last. Perhaps that is the reason for so many obvious foibles concerning Building Seven. The BBC premature collapse announcement and Larry Silverstein’s “Pull it!” may have been deliberate blunders!

        Jim, perhaps you and other serious researchers can pursue the Dimona connection. If Israeli mini-nukes were used on 9/11, that blows away the one world government supporting (un)trusted leaders of the 9/11 truth movement. Using the logic of “what are they leading us away from?” the answer is Dimona nukes!

        Other deliberate foils may include Project for a New American Century, to blame US imperialism (nationalism) for 9/11. One world government will solve everything, right? NOT!

        Christopher Bollyn has bought the nanothermite theory and claims nanothermite was made at the Israeli plutonium nuclear weapons facility at Dimona! http://www.whale.to/b/bollyn10aug26.html. He does cite other documented Dimona connections to 9/11, though. The nanothermite red herring is thrown in with evidence 9/11 was a Dimona operation.

        Although I don’t agree with Henry Makow on almost everything, he shares my perception that Dr Judy Wood’s evidence best fits nuclear demolition.
        http://www.henrymakow.com/911_-_nukes_caused_this_devast.html
        There are other photographs of vehicles that rusted immediately from nuclear test blasts, elsewhere on the Internet. I don’t have the time to locate them now. The search engines are not helpful at locating this information.

        The Israelis and Zionists certainly had a direct hand in 9/11, But, the highest level of power on this planet is wielded by the Jesuits.
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/13289911/Does-the-Vatican-Hold-Your-Mortgage
        “Illuminati” was a rename for the Jesuits, after they were banned by the Pope! Illuminati was a real organization! The mysterious “Illuminati” is the Jesuit sponsored network. The center of the world banking and economic system is the City of London square mile. The Jesuits forced the British to accept Jesuit owned Bank of England notes as their currency. The Bank of England began as a branch of the Bank of Rome. The US Federal Reserve is a defacto branch of the Bank of England. There is evidence the Rothschilds are Knights of Malta. The Zionists are pawns of the Jesuit bankers, who seek to establish one world government subservient to their one world currency. One world currency partially exists, in the Bank of International Settlements. The Rothschilds take orders from the Jesuits, since the Jesuits can assassinate anyone. “Ownership is nothing, control is everything” said one Rothschild.

        Please refer my name if you incorporate any of my ideas into your work. That keeps my bloodline “recruiters” at bay.

        For next time, the 80 year cycle of depressions, followed by large scale wars. 1931 was 80 years ago. US corporations and policies are strengthening China’s economy and weakening the US. Is this a repeat of “trading with the (future) enemy?”

        • Russ, You are making such interesting posts, which I appreciate more than you can imagine. On my facebook page, a “friend” named Rob Weaver has been assailing the mini-nuke hypothesis. I asked him to elaborate his reasons for skepticism, which he elaborated as follows. His remarks are also worth taking seriously, so I would be grateful to have your thoughts about them. Thanks.

          Rob Weaver The pattern of destruction in bldgs. 1 and 2 does not fit with “mini nukes”. Bldgs. 1 and 2 were pulverized explosively, floor by floor, from the top down. Bldg 6 had nuke-like destruction but [was] too clean, too cylindrical.

          James Henry Fetzer I would like to hear why Rob thinks the demolition of the Twin Towers is inconsistent with mini-nukes of some kind.
          10 hours ago · Like

          Rob Weaver The pattern of destruction, the successive floor by floor pulverization of concrete, seems to me to indicate carefully timed high explosive, a common CD technique. A nuke would produce a spherical range of destruction would it not? None of the classic nuclear bomb destruction pattern or witness testimony of the bright flash?
          10 hours ago · Like

          Rob Weaver I consider attacking “nanothermite” a straw man, because I dont think anyone asserts it was the sole demolition tool, or the material that generates high explosions, as is insinuated in the article.
          10 hours ago · Like

          Rob Weaver On the other hand, there are many witnesses who did hear and see multiple explosions in rapid succession.
          10 hours ago · Like

          Rob Weaver A nuke is a very “uncontrolled” demolition. The damage and fallout would be widespread and unmanageable. So close to Wall street and NY FED? No, the tons of dust was bad enough and probably underestimated.
          9 hours ago · Like

          Rob Weaver Like I said the damage in and around bldg 6 (holes) seems to resemble atomic bomb damage but the cylindrical shape makes me think of a beam from space (pure conjecture) I don’t know what [else] could do that.
          9 hours ago · Like

          • There are always “reasons” to deny the nuclear evidence, first being no positive Geiger Counter readings. I spent 15 minutes explaining to another truther how alpha (plutonium) radiation can be stopped by mere paper. Gamma radiation requires a lead barrier. By extension, I expect alpha could also be blocked by the dust clouds on 9/11. When I finished he asked “What about the fallout?” You can lead a horse to water, be can’t make him drink! There is extensive, conclusive evidence nukes were involved. Tritium and deuterium levels far above normal were measured by a government agency, US Geological Survey. Radiation specific cancers mean exactly that. This evidence carries the same weight as a positive Geiger counter reading. Rob Weaver’s arguments are a waste of time. Discussing the how and why of the nuclear demolition is also a waste of time, when other conclusive evidence exists of nuclear demolition. Like JFK’s head flying backward, there is only one possible conclusion.

            There are more advanced truthers, such as the sponsors of this forum, who might appreciate the significance of the Dimona connection. Christopher Bollyn shows evidence 9/11 was controlled from the Mossad command at Dimona. Bollyn then goes off on the red herring that the plutonium weapons facility at Dimona was used to make nanothermite. (DUH!) If 9/11 was managed by Mossad, using Dimona nukes, then it was an Israeli operation! The complacent millions who are aware of 9/11 truth, but blame the Bush Administration, might actually do something if enough of us truthers explain the nuclear/Dimona connection. Israel requires support of the US liberals and progressives to continue its present course.

            I’m for refining and expanding the Dimona connection evidence and attacking the liberal New World Order/One World Government creeps who are trying to steal our movement. Like you, I saw through 9/11 on 9/11. The two primary diversions of 9/11 truth have been nuclear demolition and the degree of Israeli involvement. Those diversions indicate to me that the nukes were from Israel!

            It is not just to avoid the label of “antisemite” that I say the Jesuits are above the Rothschilds and Zionists. They are. The history of the Bank of England is fairly conclusive evidence in itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot
            Abraham Lincoln said the Jesuits were after him, for his banking policies.

            The Jesuits cannot hide behind “antisemitism.” Auditing the Vatican Banks and Rothschilds would reveal so much wrongdoing that their assets would be seized and returned to humanity. The alternative is to allow them to continue their objective of bringing back the Vatican’s “good old days” that we call the Dark Ages.

  13. How appropriate that this debate/discussion is conducted here, at Veteran’s Today. I am the son of a combat veteran. I am proud of my father’s service with the Marines in WWII. Yet as a VietNam war protestor, I am frustrated by veterans. Did they not know that VietNam desired freedom from western colonial powers more than it desired to link up with expansionist imperial Communism? The answer is, no, they didn’t. Our patriotic sons and daughters believed first, and questioned second, if at all. They gave and sacrificed first, and demanded that the public understand their sacrifices only much later. Our adversaries on this planet know that the U.S. government gets it’s people to go to war using deception, but they also know that America coughs up an ample supply of courageous souls who act on their knee-jerk belief that when Uncle Sam says he needs them, his motives are pure. Soldiers and veterans are in a sense, the ultimate idealists. America is the greatest, Uncle Sam never lies, fighting and killing any enemy is exactly the same as killing a home invader. The idealism is simple, fragile, even shallow. When Uncle Sam betrays the Vet’s sacrifices by subverting our liberties, as the Patriot Act does, few Vets stand up to fight THAT battle. Only too, too obviously, countless liberals have said ‘what good is the Constitution, if it’s guarantees are not enforced?’ Indeed. But the simple Veteran, unable to exercise his intellect over such esoterica, stands by and watches his nation become a home of Grand Deceivers, who are currently running amok throughout the land. He says, ‘I did my bit. Let someone else fight the fight of 9/11 truth, or NAFTA, or CIA coke importation, or DUMPS, or a corrupt Congress, or bailouts for Wall Street, or a co-opted news media. Okay, fine. Others HAVE taken up the battle standard to fight for truth, justice, and the American Way. And THEIR efforts have been duly ignored by the general public. Why? Because the Evil Ones use every trick in their book to distract people from knowing what they should know to be able to influence their fate(s). Now I tighten up. A keyway in destabilizing the grand plans of those who want to rule the planet centrally, and reduce us all to cattle, is 9/11. This one issue opens up the whole can of worms. For many like me, once I grasped 9/11, and scanned the horizon for the other mysteries I formerly was stupid about, the lights of understanding began turning on, one by one. The forces of Evil do not want that to happen as a generalized phenomenon. Which leads us to our Veterans. You are now being drafted. I’m drafting you. I AM AMERICA! As much as you’ve given, I need you again. Why? Because all people MUST COME TO KNOW how close Evil is to winning, and we must wrest control of our fates away from those who call us ‘useless eaters’. The people are distracted, and they need voices that they can trust. There is only ONE VOICE in America that is unimpeachable: the voice of the Veteran! But your voice is silent, for the most part, because you will not see how we’ve all been lied to, and misled. It hurts you too much. You have a childlike myth about everything American, that silences the warnings our founding fathers gave us about protecting liberty from internal threats.

  14. I have not read the book.

    9-11 Plot—’Made in Israel’

    August 27, 2011
    If it’s 9-11 truth you seek, look no further than Victor Thorn’s latest book on the subject, Made in Israel: 9-11 and the Jewish Plot Against America.

    What this book makes clear, and what many 9-11 “truthers” don’t know, is that a massive deception and cover-up exists not only in the mainstream media, but in the so-called 9-11 truth movement as well.
    It is true that 9-11 was an “inside” job, and criminal elements within the U.S. government were undoubtedly involved, as is so often stated by many authors and activists. But 9-11 was much more. It was an “outside” job also, ultimately made in Israel, as a mountain of evidence compiled in this new, landmark book clearly shows.

    For example, whereas other authors and activists have repeatedly pointed out that Marvin Bush, brother of former President George W. Bush, was on the board of directors of a company responsible for security at the World Trade Center, Thorn specifically names the Jewish-owned security firms involved, discusses them in detail, and most importantly, points out who actually owned—and therefore controlled—them. It certainly wasn’t Bush.

    While other 9-11 researchers and authors might lead you on a wild goose chase and have you barking up the wrong tree at the Bush administration and the U.S. government, this book sets the record straight by focusing on the actual perpetrators and puppet masters.

    Jewish control of World Trade Center security and Jewish ownership of the WTC complex is only one tiny piece of the 9-11 puzzle that Thorn meticulously pieces together. The degree of Jewish-Zionist influence over many aspects of American society documented in this book is mind-boggling.

    As former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon knowingly proclaimed, “We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”

    A cover-up of this magnitude on 9-11 could only have been carried out by a group of ruthless individuals who will stop at nothing to protect their vital interests, who will disregard and cross any moral boundary, and who possess control over America and the minds of most Americans through their control of the media.

    Only Israel and its Zionist supporters could have accomplished such a feat. No other group had this kind of power or the motive to perpetrate a crime so horrendous and dastardly.

    Only one nation and group of people benefited most from the attacks on 9-11: Israel and the Zionist Jews. Every other nation and group suffered, most especially those who were wrongly blamed for the attack. America suffered, Iraq suffered, Afghanistan suffered and Arab Muslims suffered. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so arrogantly boasted before an audience at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the twin towers and Pentagon.”

    There you have it: The prime minister of Israel publicly admitted that the Israelis benefited from the 9-11 attacks. As any criminologist will tell you, the most likely suspect in any crime is the person or entity that benefited from the crime. Considering the fact that the rogue state of Israel has a prior criminal record of perpetrating just such a crime—the June 8, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty—the verdict in this case is clear and unmistakable: 9-11 was made in Israel.

  15. I very much enjoyed the article and learned quite a bit from it and thank Mr. Hightower for writing it. I have come away from it a bit less hopeful about a new investigation then before and here’s why. First, I’m just a regular guy. I don’t have an advanced degree in any scientific discipline, hence my perspective on 911 Truth is very pragmatic, which I think is how most people like me (without advanced degrees) are going to approach the subject. My position is quite simple and is simply based on the concept of “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”. The public has to be presented a SOLID and coherent argument that simply causes people to sincerely reflect and have a “Reasonable Doubt” about the veracity of the official story! It also has to appeal to emotion (which is why all this technical mumbo jumbo will lose many). It has to be based on a solid, coherent argument that asserts that we did indeed not get it right. That the explanation we were given is faulty because of x,y and z and if we’re going to go wage 2 wars and put our soldiers in harms way, bomb innocent men women and children, displace millions, as well as shred our constitution then we damn well get it right! Not just a little right, but dead nuts right. Just like a prosecuting attorney needs to present evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt before asking for the death (or any other ) penalty, we in the court of public opinion need to hold our officials to the same standard, else we all have blood on our hands. This is the point of emotion that needs to be driven home to the public at large. We didn’t get it right! We didn’t even get it a little right and because we let our officials off the hook then you Mr and Ms John and Jane Q public have blood on your hands! Imagine being an innocent Iraqi, or Pakistani, or innocent Afganhi, and a drone has just bombed you to the stone age, or has killed your children. You might be wondering why the hell don’t the American people hold their government accountable.
    So there has been more then enough science done. We don’t need a definitive answer!. We need a new investigation
    We need a coherent argument that makes people have doubt about the official story, gets them pissed off about being lied to, having their civil rights compromised, their tax dollars spent on wars (rather then on their schools, roads and bridges) and
    shames them about having blood on their hands to the point that they’re willing to take some type of action. The 911 Truth movement is very much it’s own worst enemy in this regard. Anyway, just my two cents. As they say in marketing when you’re trying to sell something; “A Confused Mind Never Buys”. This is why any marketing message has to be clear. People have grasp and comprehend the value of what they’re being told. The 911 Truth movement will make quantum strides forward after they are able to comprehend this message and allow people to internalize the answer to a very simple question; “Why 911 Truth Is Important to Them”.
    Thanks
    Dan

    • Excellent commentary, Dan! We are contemplating the difference between 9/11 RESEARCH and 9/11 POLITICS.

      From the political point of view, what you have to say is exemplary and I agree with every word of it. The problem is that any “new investigation”–and precisely WHAT ENTITY do we believe would be both competent and objective enough to undertake one?–has to be justified on the basis of serious research that exposes (a) that the official account is a fraud (see, for example, “Why doubt 9/11?”, which is archived at http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46 and (b) for those who want to understand, how it was actually done, which is a more complicated undertaking.

      If (a) were enough, we should already be there, since there is more than enough proof that the official account is a fraud. (b) represents the continuation of what I expect will turn out to be the ONLY “new investigation” we are ever going to see. So I welcome your further thoughts about all of this. The problem is not RESEARCH on 9/11 but the confusion of objectives that prevails even within the 9/11 Truth movement. We will never attain our POLITICAL OBJECTIVES if our movement is based upon SHODDY RESEARCH. Your post is perhaps the most thoughtful and intelligent yet about the current state of the 9/11 Truth movement. Thanks for it.

      • Hi Jim,

        I agree with what you say, but lets add a little bit of sauce to it. A new investigation will be made more possible as people realize that it’s in their best interest to have one and when I say people I include the 535 misguided folks sitting on their high horse in DC. A new investigation will be in their best interest when they realize that the regular folks back home realize it’s in their best interest and that is what I’m really trying to zero in on in this thread. Everyone typically will act in accordance with what they feel on a conscious, or unconscious level to be what is in their best interest. So, if you and I were to meet on the street and I said to you; “Jim, we need a new investigation into what happened on 911″. I need to be able to articulate reasons to you that puts you in the position of being a stakeholder. So I do agree with you that there needs to be hard science, because as my former boss once said; “In God We Trust, All Others Bring Data”, but how much is enough? I would almost argue that the next (best) logical step is the hard science guys get together with the legal guys and then maybe get together with the marketing guys to come up with a campaign. Right now there’s a lot of spaghetti being thrown against the wall and there’s a few pieces that have sticking power and few that don’t. Maybe a 911 Truth Lobby. A 911 Truth Coalition, I don’t know. All I do know is that every day that we go without a new investigation means more people will die needlessly. More FDA raids on whole food farmers. More renditions, more warrant-less wire tapping, more
        torture. I sense on one hand that trying to form such a coalition, or lobby might be the absolute best step forward, but having been around intellectual circles in the past, I also know that alpha personalities want to be alpha and wonder if people could put away their ego’s long enough to dedicate themselves to the greater good. Don’t get me wrong, I admire the work you’ve done. I admire the work Richard Gage has done. I admire David Griffin and all of the people how have taken a public position on this issue. I’m just ‘blue skying’ here trying to zero in on a strategy that is on target. We have to get a critical mass of people asking for a new investigation.

        It’s a complex issue of science, engineering, psychology, politics, law and marketing but if I had a magic lamp, I’d rub it and put together a dream team of experts in all fields who were up to the challenge of bringing all of this into focus. Focus so that no one could ever look at a dead Iraqi baby and know that to some extent that baby is dead because of their complacency.

        To get people to the place Beal gets to in Network where he cajoles people to go to their window and scream out loud; “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gong to take it anymore!” It’s the same place you get to when your girlfriend (or boyfriend) has cheated on you for the 2nd or 3rd time. You finally realize you’ve been had. You’ve been lied lied to and you can’t trust them any longer. How much science does this take? I say we have enough science. Not that more science shouldn’t be done as more evidence is made available but there’s more then enough science to engender a reasonable doubt in a reasonable persons mind.

        All I know and feel in my gut is this; we can’t eat the elephant all in one bite! We have to bring the subject out of the darkness and get the public comfortable with talking about it. Once that happens some in the media will follow suit, then more and if we can do this we’ll be light years ahead of where we are and on our way to building the kind of critical mass we need.

        The 2nd thing and I think this speaks to the justification or logic for having a dream team is this. The movement needs mega $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. A war chest. Much of the research that has been done has done by virtue of people pulling bucks out of their own pocket. But you and I know that the opposition has an unlimited budget. I have more ideas on this but I’l conclude for now.
        Thanks for the reply.

  16. Ed Kendrick posted this on Facebook. BTW, Fetzer was using the Hightower article to say 9/11 truth is based on a false theory. Neither ‘gentlemen’ are considerate of the importance of solidarity and ride upon criticism of the work of Jones/Harrit to support their position of “based upon a false theory”.

    Hightower’s response: First of all, isn’t it a self evident truth that criticism would form the basis for showing that a theory is false? Solidarity in a false theory is not wise. My criticism of the nanothermite theory should be good for the 911 truth movement no matter where the chips fall. If the nanothermite theory can withstand the criticism then the resulting theory will be stronger than before. If it can’t withstand the criticism, it deserves to fall, and the 911 truth movement will be stronger for it.

    • Mr. Hightower,

      I like to take things one step at a time. The first step is: It has been confirmed by the RJ Lee Group and the NYPD Museum that temperatures far in excess of what jet fuel or office fires can attain melted iron and concrete during the event and in the debris pile. The only known source of the extreme temperatures is some form of thermite.

      • Something that bothers me about your approach, Chris, which I take to be another attempt to salvage the nanothermite hypothesis, is that it has been shown to be inadequate. What is there about the detonation velocity comparison that you do not understand? or the absence of the kind of blinding light flashes that would have been ubiquitous had it been used? And this claim that “the only known source of the extreme temperature is some form of thermite” cannot possibly be true.

        To arrive at that conclusion based upon reason and evidence, you would have to establish the complete range of possible alternatives, which would include mini-nukes (3rd or 4th generation, fission or fusion), lasers, masers, plasmoids, and other forms of directed energy weapons. Plasmoids are an interesting example, which I discuss in “An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11″, http://911scholars.ning.com by entering that title in the search space. It needs revision and updating, but is enough for present purposes.

        Plasmoids are explosive gases that produce tens of thousands of degrees heat, while nanothermite only produces thousands of degrees of heat. Plasmoids could more readily explain the conversion of concrete and steel into fine dust, the so-called pyroclastic clouds and the molten metal and fires volumes of water could not extinguish, which may have burned for 99 days. I am not necessarily agreeing about all the data, but noting that plasmoids are an alternative cause that could explain these three sets.

        So where are the arguments that demonstrate that some form of thermite is “the only known source of these extreme temperatures”? Given the familiarity we all possess as common knowledge of the extraordinary temperature effects of nukes, I am very surprised that you advance such a claim, which appears to be false on its face. And of course you appear to be talking about its use as an incendiary, since we already know that it cannot pulverize concrete or destroy steel. So why are you making this argument?

        • Before getting to other sources for the extreme temperatures I would like to clarify if we agree on the conclusive evidence that temperatures of 2800 F, by the RJ Lee Group, and 3270 F by the NYPD Museum, occurred during the event and in the debris pile..

          Do you agree that these two very credible sources confirm those temperatures?

          • You can’t get off the hook that easily, Chris. You have alleged that “only nanothermite” could have brought these effects about. I think you should admit–right off the bat!–that you were mistaken, since mini-nukes and plasmoids, for example, could have done the same, before you persist in advancing more justification for your false claims, OK?

          • Why do you refuse to answer a simple question?
            Do you believe the RJ Lee Group and the NYPD Museum or not?

            As for mini-nukes – the smallest mini-nuke would vaporize the entire area and leave it highly radio active.
            Plasmoids make extremely high temperatures for how long? Is there any scientific data to affirm that they could cut steel beams, create billions of iron spheres, melt concrete? Or is that just speculation?

          • Chris, Neither Mark nor I has had the chance to study this document, but bear in mind that words on pages are cheap. Assessing the evidence and the reasoning that goes into their production is a considerable task. None of the questions is simple and it troubles me that you appear to be conducting a “rear-guard action” on behalf of nanothermite. Your claim that nanothermite is the “only possible explanation” for the alleged molten metal is an extraordinary claim, which you cannot substantiate. Do you even concede that these buildings were not destroyed by nanothermite? I offered two obvious counter-examples, which you are attempting to dismiss out of hand. That does not speak well for your background, knowledge, or reasoning ability.

            There are many kinds of nukes and plasmoids are rather fascinating in their own right. Since we have already demonstrated the untenability of the nanothermite hypothesis, it is a bit rich that you suggest the consideration of alternatives is a matter of “speculation”. OF COURSE! Speculation is the second stage of scientific reasoning: PUZZLEMENT, SPECULATION, ADAPTATION (of hypotheses to evidence), and EXPLANATION. If you don’t know that, it is going to be difficult to take you seriously, especially when we have already refuted your preferred theory. You might want to take a look at “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK”, by the way. I think you need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the principles of scientific reasoning.

          • Chris: Was there something here that you did not understand about either mini-nukes or plasmoids?

            To arrive at that conclusion based upon reason and evidence, you would have to establish the complete range of possible alternatives, which would include mini-nukes (3rd or 4th generation, fission or fusion), lasers, masers, plasmoids, and other forms of directed energy weapons. Plasmoids are an interesting example, which I discuss in “An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11″, http://911scholars.ning.com by entering that title in the search space. It needs revision and updating, but is enough for present purposes.

            Plasmoids are explosive gases that produce tens of thousands of degrees heat, while nanothermite only produces thousands of degrees of heat. Plasmoids could more readily explain the conversion of concrete and steel into fine dust, the so-called pyroclastic clouds and the molten metal and fires volumes of water could not extinguish, which may have burned for 99 days. I am not necessarily agreeing about all the data, but noting that plasmoids are an alternative cause that could explain these three sets.

          • “Neither Mark nor I has had the chance to study this document, but bear in mind that words on pages are cheap.”

            The RJ Lee Group report is not “cheap words on pages”. You should read it before making a remark like that. Google: RJ Lee Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street
            The first link is the 2003 report and the second a 2004 follow up with RJ Lee’s qualifications.

            The NYPD Museum conformation is from a display case containing guns encased in concrete, with a plaque saying: Fire temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around everything in its path. [lower left]
            http://ia600303.us.archive.org/3/items/NewYorkPoliceMuseumWtcGunsMelted/DSC_7411_color_corrected.png?cnt=0

            “you appear to be conducting a “rear-guard action” on behalf of nanothermite.”
            Your opinion of me is irrelevant so keep it to yourself please.

            “Your claim that nanothermite is the “only possible explanation” ”
            I said “The only known source of the extreme temperatures is some form of thermite.”

            “Do you even concede that these buildings were not destroyed by nanothermite?”
            No.

            “There are many kinds of nukes and plasmoids are rather fascinating in their own right.”
            That’s nice, but is there any scientific data to affirm that they could cut steel beams, create billions of iron spheres or melt concrete? Or is that just speculation?
            If you don’t have any scientific data to support your hypothesis then stop suggesting that mini-nukes or plasmoids or lasers could account for the collapse observed and the iron microspheres and the molten concrete.

            “Since we have already demonstrated the untenability of the nanothermite hypothesis”
            Only in your own mind. You did not consider all the factors.
            Thermite/nano-thermite creates molten iron at 4500 F, adding organic material increases the amount of gases created. The combination of the super hot molten iron and the increased pressure will cut thru steel columns.

            Jon Cole invented a thermite device that cut thru a steel I beam in his back yard. He made up some thermate because nano-thermite is not available to the public. Nano-thermite can be tailored to be an explosive. It doesn’t have to be a “high explosive” because the super heated molten iron does most of the cutting.
            Start at 8:16 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

          • Come on, Chris. Since Harrit cites their study, it may well be accurate. But to the extent to which he supports the theory of “explosive nanothermite”, even he is wrong. Give us a break. We are trying to sort this out, while you are promoting views that appear to have no foundation, namely: that ONLY NANOTHERMITE can be responsible for the alleged pools of molten metal.

            Let me ask: Do YOU believe in “explosive nanothermite” or not? Something is clearly wrong if you still think that nanothermite shock waves could have destroyed those buildings, pulverized the concrete, or shattered the steel. We agree that it may well have been used as an incendiary, but that is something else entirely. Or did you miss the memo? We all want to know.

            Rereading one of your last posts, apparently you do! I am stunned. I at least thought you were a rational person. Now I can see why you are questioning plasmoids (which reach tens of thousands of degrees) and mini-nukes. Are you really this far gone? If you can’t see the detonation velocity is too slow and the light emission is too bright to have done in the Twin Towers, there is no hope for you.

          • “Do YOU believe in “explosive nanothermite” or not? Something is clearly wrong if you still think that nanothermite shock waves could have destroyed those buildings”
            You did not bother to read my last post. I covered that.

            “pulverized the concrete, or shattered the steel.”
            “If you can’t see the detonation velocity is too slow and the light emission is too bright to have done in the Twin Towers”

            “Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. “The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out,” Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly… Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices… However, researchers aren’t permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.” {Gartner, John (2005). “Military Reloads with Nanotech,” Technology Review, January 21, 2005; http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech }

            “Now I can see why you are questioning plasmoids (which reach tens of thousands of degrees) and mini-nukes.”
            You have no science to back up your suggestion that plasmoids or mini-nukes could have been used to destroy the Trade Towers and building 7. It’s just baseless speculation.

            “I at least thought you were a rational person.”
            “Are you really this far gone?”
            “there is no hope for you.”
            Insults are not appropriate in an adult debate.

          • So you are appealing to the “secret technology” fall back, even though, as Mark and I have explained, there is no good reason to think that a faster-reacting nanothermite should be classified information. Since we have already addressed this, I can’t see why you think that this advances the discussion.

            Of course, the “hard science” group has been unrelenting in its criticism of the work on directed energy weapons by Judy Wood, even though their existence is well known. (Just google “DEPS”, for example.)
            So if she is unworthy of being taken seriously for appealing to “secret technology”, what does this new stance mean for Jones, Ryan, and Harrit?

            I gather you also have some odd views on the Pentagon, where you insist a Boeing 757 actually DID hit the building and insist there is NO EVIDENCE of a fly-over. That suggests you are just as cavalier in your approach by dismissing “Pandora’s Black Box” and “National Security Alert” as you are in dismissing the data on detonation speed and blinding light in this case.

          • “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry. A novel sol-gel approach has proven successful in preparing metal oxide/silicon oxide nanocomposites in which the metal oxide is the major component. By introducing a fuel metal, such as aluminum, into the metal oxide/silicon oxide matrix, energetic materials based on thermite reactions can be fabricated. Two of the metal oxides are tungsten trioxide and iron(III) oxide, both of which are of interest in the field of energetic materials. In addition, due to the large availability of organically functionalized silanes, the silicon oxide phase can be used as a unique way of introducing organic additives into the bulk metal oxide materials. These organic additives can cause the generation of gas upon ignition of the materials, therefore resulting in a composite material that can perform pressure/volume work. Furthermore, the desired organic functionality is well dispersed throughout the composite material on the nanoscale with the other components, and is therefore subject to the same increased reaction kinetics. The resulting nanoscale distribution of all the ingredients displays energetic properties not seen in its microscale counterparts due to the expected increase of mass transport rates between the reactants. The synthesis and characterization of iron(III) oxide/organosilicon oxide nanocomposites and their performance as energetic materials will be discussed.” (Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC- 204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004)

          • This is very curious. Mark and I will certainly take a look at this. Do you have detonation velocities for these “enhanced” versions for nanothermite? If they actually are a major improvement in nanothermite technology, then it is most curious that this article has not been cited by the Jones/Harrit/Ryan group or why it was not presented to satisfy “The Nanothermite Challege”–unless, of course, it does not satisfy the conditions of the challenge, as I strongly suspect.

            Not to make the obvious points, but unless its detonation velocity is equal to or exceeds the speed of sound in the materials under consideration–concrete at 3,200 m/s and steel at 6,100 m/s–it isn’t going to save the day. And, in addition, unless this new version of nanothermite can be deployed without emitting the characteristic dazzling light (which was not observed on 9/11), there appears to be little point to grasping after straws, which seems to be your trademark.

          • “This is very curious. Mark and I will certainly take a look at this. Do you have detonation velocities for these “enhanced” versions for nanothermite?”
            No, but you knew that. That quote proves your claim that nano-thermite cannot be an explosive is false.

            “If they actually are a major improvement in nanothermite technology, then it is most curious that this article has not been cited by the Jones/Harrit/Ryan group or why it was not presented to satisfy “The Nanothermite Challege”–unless, of course, it does not satisfy the conditions of the challenge, as I strongly suspect.”
            Professor Jones did post that information:
            http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20110603085907274

            “Not to make the obvious points, but unless its detonation velocity is equal to or exceeds the speed of sound in the materials under consideration–concrete at 3,200 m/s and steel at 6,100 m/s–it isn’t going to save the day.”
            You are ignoring the fact [that I already posted] that those velocities are not necessary because nano-thermite produces molten iron at 4500 F which does most of the cutting. I posted the video by Jon Cole in which he demonstrates a device he invented in his back yard that cuts steel beams with regular thermate. Nano-thermite reacts much faster and when combined with organics it can be made to cut steel beams even faster. You continue to ignore these facts.

            “And, in addition, unless this new version of nanothermite can be deployed without emitting the characteristic dazzling light (which was not observed on 9/11)”
            Several witnesses saw flashes of light and NIST acknowledges “. . . a very bright white flame”

            “The intense fire in the northeast corner opening of the 81st floor is still present. An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph in Figure 9–44 >>a very bright white flame,<>The brightness of the flame, along with the white smoke, suggests that some type of metal is burning. Metal combustion is known to generate much higher flame temperatures than hydrocarbon combustion, and, as a result, to burn much brighter.<>Aluminum oxide melts at high temperatures [2072 °C] that are not typically reached in normal fires.<<

            There were limited quantities of other metals on the aircraft that might also burn. Whatever the metal, the ignition of a metal fire is an indication of the significant heating of the debris that took place in the northeast corner of the 81st floor due to the prolonged intense burning in this area following the aircraft impact.
            Pg 344 [pdf pg 48]
            http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909088

            "grasping after straws, which seems to be your trademark."
            Can you put up a post without a personal insult?

        • Indeed, whatever remains, no matter how ridiculously impossible, must contain the truth. Evidence, evidence, evidence. People are making this harder by espousing beliefs rather than science. Christ, there are rap groups singing about the no planers these days. Just stick to science and the evidence wherever it leads. Hard cases are solved this way, not by belief systems.

    • Mark, I think you mean to be quoting Ed Kendrick, where the sentences quoted should appear in quotation marks as follows:

      Ed Kendrick posted this on Facebook. “BTW, Fetzer was using the Hightower article to say 9/11 truth is based on a false theory. Neither ‘gentlemen’ are (sic) considerate of the importance of solidarity and ride upon criticism of the work of Jones/Harrit to support their position of ‘based upon a false theory’.”

      And your response further accents a point that I have made before, namely: that logic and evidence are not his strong suits!

  17. sorry, but this entire attack on nanothermit being the sole explanation for the destruction of the towers because the clear evidence suggests more was involved has become both trite and tiresome.

    First question – do you dispute that ANY nanothermite weas used? Do you dispute the findings that nanothermite was present in the material recovered from the WTC building? If so, what is your evidence that the eported findings are false?

    Unless you deny thepresence and use of any nano thermite, your attack on the argument for its use, and the significance it has on assessing how te towwers came down and who was responsible, is blatant nonsense and can only be aimed at undermining and discrediting the trtuh movement.

    Let me clear up the sole and key significance of the finding that nanothermite was used in the collapse of the towers. It falsifies beyond any question or doubt, without the slightest possibility of contradiction, the gov ernment claim and explanation that the towers came down because they were hit by hijacked planes that caused fire which weakened the structure to the point they collapsed. That, indceed is all that the truth movement needs to refute the govebnrments accusation of who did it and how. Nanothermite is thus the glove in the Simpson case because it destroys in one fell swoop the claim the Simpson (the hijackers did it by proving as false the allegedly rock solid evidence that ewxplains the collapse – the visual sitng of the planes hitting the buildings. It’s i exaxctly the same categiory of false and fraudulent evidence to frame an innocent party in both cases. BTW, tghe glove is only the slightest part of the evidence fabrication in this case. For example, Golkdman had two stab wounds in the luibng, but only 100 ml of blood were found in his pleural cavity. Hias aota had two 1/2 inch cuts just above the bifurcation, but only 200 ml of blood were found in his abdominal cavity. Only a very small amount of blood was lost from the cut jugular vein. So how did someone die from not more than the loss of 500 ml of blood.) All these findings and inferences from the evidence the p[rosecution prfesented is, however, effective only for the purpose of falsifying the governent’s claim of how and by whom the victims were killed. It does nothibng whatever to make a case of how they were killeds or by whom for the simplest but perhaps not obvious reason that the falsfied evidence the governmnebt prvded will not contain anything that will actually point to idebntifying either the method of murder or by whom it was done because in the process of amassing it, the police will have done their best to destroy any evidence there ever was that pointed to how the murders were committed or by whom So it’s practically impossible to use their evidence to make an altgernate case.

    Now exactly the same goes for WTC. Your demands for testing to identify other explosives are both futile and underrmine the effort to go after the real culprits for at least the foll;owing reasons.

    1. Almost all of the materials from the WTC towers has been sent to smelters and has been destroyed. Consequently, there is little if anything left that can be tested to determine exactly how the towers collapsed. Whatever material remains can only be from isolated portions of the structure, and whatever the test results from examining those pieces might be, they can never establishe what happened in other parts of the buildibngs to establish and and by what the whole buildibg was collapsed. Any isolated test results can. moreoever then easily be dimissed as aberrations or false results that leads ti endless disputes about what he said she said was true.

    2. Have you any concept of the chain of custordy nercessary to establishing the authenticity of the test resuts to establish that the material tested in fact is what it purports to be and is directly linked to and part of the ilding or the residue of explopsive forces that destroyed it? Unless you have such a chain of custody for whatever material you are testing, the test results won’t come in any court house door and will be totally worthless for proving anything about how the towers collapsed or who did it. So mere testing of materials without that chain of custody is an entirely worthless and futile exercise that gets you nowhere.

    3. The government officials responsibilty for the crime scene and for the investigation have by their actions not only destroyed most of the evidence, but any possible chain of custody for conducting a forensic examination of the evidence to make it possible to establish the manner and cause of the destruction of the towers. They have thereby obstructed justice by impeding the conduct of any investigation necesary to establish the facts necessary to bring to justice the perpetrators.

    It thus appears the hopeless tor the truth movement to get to the bottom of the case. It may appear so, except for one thing. The presence of the nasnothermite, like the glove that did not fit, means you must acquit the hijackers. The next step then is to hold accountable for obstructing justice those who impeded the required investigation of the crime, and who by that obstruction became accomplices after the fact and co-conspirators with the perpetrators of the attack. And you start rolling them up with grand juries and the proper investigative techniques (I wouldn’t cry if they were water boarded, but I would not advocate it). I have some candidates in mind to get the ball rolling – The NYPD, FEMA, the mayor and his office, etc. etc

    That’s how you get to the real truth about 911. Not with some hocus pocus testing that gets no one anywhwere.

    Prien

    • I agree with most of this and have addressed my disagreements in my first few replies above.

  18. See what I mean by a verbose, sophist tar baby?

  19. The breakup of ReDiscover911.com and Fetzer occurred when I challenged Fetzer about video fakery (no planes hit the Twin Towers). The looney Fetzer would have us all be his followers–and fellow loonies for the mass media (controlled by WHO) to cast us as wackos.

    Up until Fetzer promoted that the planes didn’t exist (and sided with John Lear who says the planes were holographic projections), Fetzer participated in our development group conference calls and was fully supportive of the mission statement of ReDiscover911.com which appears on this page: http://rediscover911.com/who-did-911/

    What I’ve learned is that Fetzer is not to be trusted.

  20. http://youtu.be/Um64B1NZXes Since NIST released videos, the “disintegration” of the steel spire is clearly FALLING STEEL–not vaporization.

    Taking a swing at sophist Jim Fetzer will get you stuck as if to a blustering tar baby.

    At this 10th anniversary juncture, rolling out disinfo against our best evidence seems designed to retard the 9/11 truth efforts. Of course, Fetzer casts himself as the darling of the truthers–however, his 2006-2007 breakup of Scholars for 9/11 Truth shows him to be far more politically than scientifically motivated.

    • Ed Kendrick is an “Israel did everything” guy who doesn’t believe in logic or evidence. I have traded exchanges with him for years. He ignores even the most obvious, namely: that the break-up of Scholars was precipitated by the “hard science” guys who also brought us nanothermite! If you can buy the myth of nanothermite, then you can buy the kind of rubbish that Ed Kendrick espouses. 9/11 involved collaboration between the CIA, the DoD and the Mossad. The 9/11 Truth movement is riddled with mediocrities pretending to be scholars. Ed Kendrick is a dentist.

      • Jim Fetzer was a founding member of our website, ReDiscover911.com and helped us with a skilled web designer. So, the “rubbish” that Fetzer says is our website was praised and aided in development by the sophist tar baby himself. At the time I was grateful for Fetzer’s approval of our website and his help in bringing a web designer.

        Now, I see Fetzer as a disinformation leader–and not a very skilled one in his bluster and quite unkind treatment of those who disagree with him.

        • I used to think Ed Kendrick was man of limited intellect whose heart was in the right place. Now I see he’s incompetent and only causes problems for a movement that would fare better without the likes of him. I did what I could to assist him with his website at the time, but he has proven to be more trouble than he’s worth.

          • The breakup of ReDiscover911.com and Fetzer occurred when I challenged Fetzer about video fakery (no planes hit the Twin Towers). The looney Fetzer would have us all be his followers–and fellow loonies for the mass media (controlled by WHO) to cast us as wackos.
            Up until Fetzer promoted that the planes didn’t exist (and sided with John Lear who says the planes were holographic projections), Fetzer participated in our development group conference calls and was fully supportive of the mission statement of ReDiscover911.com which appears on this page: http://rediscover911.com/who-did-911/
            What I’ve learned is that Fetzer is not to be trusted.

  21. Jim,
    there is an interesting YouTube video titled Rense & Dr. Judy Wood- Where Did the Towers Go? It is a 41 minute interview. There is a very interesting occurence between 21:19 – 21:40 timeline in the video to a steel spire in the background that remained standing briefly, but as you watch, well, you be the judge…

  22. OK. No nanothermite involved. What then caused the metal, that is visibly pouring out of the towers, to melt? Why was still hot, and molten metal found in the rubble 1 month after. Please don’t try to say it was caused by jet fuel. It is obvious that the jet fuel/pancake theory is not plausible.

    The real point here is that the official version is bullshit. That is all you really need to know. If it is bullshit, the perpetrators were not 19 Arabs with box cutters. If it is not 19 Arabs with box cutters, the government has participated in a conspiracy to suppress evidence and misdirect the truth from being discovered. Finding out who was involved in the conspiracy should be the focus. Identifying the conspirators will lead to how and by whom. Arguing whether it was nanothermite, a mini-nuke, dynamite or any combination of the above is counterproductive..

    • Well, we don’t claim that nanothermite was not involved. We explain why it cannot possibly have blown the buildings apart, pulverized the concrete or destroyed the steel. I have addressed the flow from the 80th floor of the South Tower many times. (See, for example, the slide show, “Was 9/11 an ‘inside job’?”, which is archived at http://911scholars.org. While you are there, check out the upper-left corner and take a look at “Why doubt 9/11?”, where I summarized 20 major findings that refute the official account.) What is odd about that flow is that it is unique to that location, which suggested to me that there was something distinctive about it.

      Fuji Bank had a massive array of batteries stored there as back-up for its clients’ records in case there was an interruption in the electrical supply. My best guess, therefore, has been that it may have been lead flowing, which has a very low melting point compared with aluminum and especially steel. Notice, in particular, that we do not witness these flows elsewhere in the buildings. So if nanothermite was used all over those towers, we would expect similar flows at random. But they aren’t there. And it was not an effect of the jet fuel, most of which burned up in those spectacular fire-balls in the first fifteen or twenty seconds.

      • >And it was not an effect of the jet fuel, most of which burned up in those spectacular fire-balls in the first fifteen or twenty seconds.<

        No planes, no jet fuel??

        Husq

        • Faking planes hitting buildings entails faking the explosions that would have occurred had they actually done that. As I have explained many places, they had to time those “hits” to coincide with the explosions in the subbasements that drained the sprinkler systems of water; get the “planes” completely into the buildings before they “exploded” to have a pseudo-explanation for their subsequent “collapse”; and in the process thereby create a phony explanation for those subbasement explosions (which were quite real) on the basis of the claim that jet fuel had fallen through the elevator shafts and “exploded” when it reached the subbasements.

          There were problems with this plan, since the elevator shafts were off-set every thirty floors, where you had to leave one and enter another. There were two for maintenance that ran from the top to the bottom, but a North Tower custodian was in one of them and survived, which would not have happened had this taken place. And, as Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong confirmed, the subbasement explosions occurred 14 and 17 seconds BEFORE the alleged impact of those “planes”, which they have explained in their brilliant study, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an ‘inside job’”, which I frequently cite, including in “Seven Questions about 9/11″.

          It would have been extremely difficult to hit those buildings with real planes, moreover, and no real plane could have penetrated them, where the “hit” on the North Tower intersected seven floors of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other (and covered with 4-8″ of concrete) and on the South Tower eight, which would have created enormous horizontal resistance. Real planes would have crumpled, their wings and tail broken off, and bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground. The engines would have penetrated into and possibly even passed completely through those structures, where one was simulated to have been found at the corner of Church & Murray.

          As I have explained in “More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity”, that “engine” did not come from a Boeing 767. It is sitting on the sidewalk, which has no apparent damage, and beneath a construction scaffolding made of metal, which is similarly undamaged, where it appears to have been placed by agents wearing FBI vests, who were caught by FOX News unloading something heavy from a white van. The plot was quite ingenious, but they made mistakes, which have enabled us to expose 9/11 as an elaborate hoax with special effects and fabricated evidence. Check out http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/11/inside-job-more-proof-of-911-duplicity/

    • related:

      August 25, 2011 – “that’s incorrect, the black boxes have been studied, the aircraft have been studied intensively” – James Meigs, editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics magazine’s book, “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts”

      http://eddieleaks.org/2011/08/25/popular-mechanics-james-meigs-admits-black-boxes-found-and-studied/

      • I love it! There was a hostile take-over of POPULAR MECHANICS so its good name could be exploited on behalf of the official account of 9/11. I assume that you are familiar with DEBUKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKERS, one of many excellent books from the hand of David Ray Griffin. But you do raise an interesting case. Since we know no plane crashed in Shanksville or hit the Pentagon, where can be no “black boxes” from there. And in New York, neither case appears to have involved a real plane. So I suspect that this is a fall-back position to undermine “video fakery”. Check it out!

  23. I see. We don’t have to think the unthinkable because CNN guy said plane at Pentagon, a few days after he reported the opposite? Or Rivero says, even though he’s made a living doing that unthinkable thing know as video fakery? How good is he at it? If he can’t recognize it?

    Usually when some one hits a nerve they become the pain (enemy). Who got to DrWoods?

    Because the perps did use the unthinkable they have the advantage of fomenting dissent amongst the groups. This the ten little indians on the warpath but against the wrong enemy.

    Alan Roland brought this back to recollection just a few days ago here at VT:

    It is not necessary to bury the truth.
    It is sufficient merely to delay it until nobody cares: Napoleon Bonaparte

    • I think you’re on the right track. We have a believable theory (about nanothermite) that turns out to be false and an unbelievable theory (about video fakery) that turns out to be true! The objective of disinfo is not to convince anyone one way or the other but to make everything believable and nothing knowable, as Marty Schotz observed re JFK.

      • Please. The unbelievable theory about vidoe fakery is– false, and least unless and until you produce proof that it is possible to make moving holographic projections against the sky. I have checked this out with a former electrical engineer for Lucent, and he assures me you are nuts about that.

        Prien

        • Well, I have featured “experts” of my own, including Stephen Brown, who had recently completed a course on holography at Cambridge. You can find our interview on “The Real Deal”. Your “former Lucent engineer”, alas, is out of date. And I wish you would cease trying to make up reasons to attack me. I have been very considerate of you.

  24. Are the videos of the planes hitting the twin towers validated? Doe anyone claim them to be false or altered?
    This is a sincere request. I am no engineer or scientist, just asking.

    • BJ
      This is the issue. One Israeli video team was caught. There could have been a dozen. No video is beyond fakery, not when billions were involved.
      The issues…was it easier to fake the videos or build impossible planes and plant bombs or nanothermite or whatever all over buildings or both.
      Or we could have simply arrested Bush and Cheney years ago and forgot the rest of it.
      g

  25. derp derp derp. so jim, if you “win” this argument online, what then?

    “yippee-yay! i showed a and e and all those inter-nuts who’s boss!”

    will the “real investigation” begin then? will the arrests begin then?

    none of this means jack-shit until a real and publicly-supported trial is held.

    for justice to be done, there must be a new investigation.

    that’s not gonna happen, cuz you will never convince sheep of the things you are saying. they will think that you and i and all of the 9/11 truth movement are crazy.

    i have an idea: throw your and your followers’ ardent support behind the truth of wtc7—something we can all agree on—so we can get a hearing in a public arena. once the ball gets rolling, show up with all of your evidence to add fuel to the fire.

    splintering the movement does no one any good.

    (i’m beginning to suspect you are aware of this…)

    • Well, you can form the fan club for “Liars for 9/11 Truth”. I don’t know what “means jack-shit”, but I am not going to tolerate exaggerated claims and outright falsehoods in the name of a TRUTH movement. I didn’t splinter the 9/11 movement–that was a consequence of the “hard science” guys, whose theory about nanothermite turns out to be rubbish. You appear to be the one who hasn’t a clue as to what’s in the best interests of 9/11 truth, not me.

      • Science is never convenient for shaved apes Jim. Ever watch people read difficult material? Their lips move……..

  26. Dated Aug 27 form Mike Rovero’s whatreallyhappened.com website:

    Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA TODAY

    A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye.

    It didn’t register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn’t believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it’s wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.

    Webmaster’s Commentary:

    As we get closer to the 10th Anniversary of the 9-11 false-flag attack, government propagandists are trying as hard as they can to push the no-plane nonsense to the forefront of the 9-11 truth movement, so that the media has a quick and easy means to ridicule and dismiss those who do not accept the official story.

    Even now I am being email bombed by obvious shills insisting I must agree with the no-plane theory.

    Bull biscuits!

    These witness accounts underscore one of the major flaws with the no-plane theory.

    Numerous witnesses saw the 757 fling towards the Pentagon. Had the plane flown over the Pentagon, it would follow logically that an equal number of witnesses would have seen it flying away. In actuality, due to the noise, we would expect more witnesses to see the plane flying away from the Pentagon than saw it flying towards the building.

    So, where are they?

    • Oops! his last name is Rivero

    • Brian, Do you know so little about 9/11 and the Pentagon that you are taken in by this drivel? No “wing” was in the dirt! How absurd. Go back to “Seven Questions about 9/11″ and LOOK AT THE PHOTO AS THE CIVILIAN LIME-GREEN FIRE TRUCKS ARE EXTINGUISHING THE FIRES. No only is there no debris on the lawn, but the lawn is immaculate–clear, green, and unblemished! I can’t believe how many smart people are taken in by total frauds like this!

      And I spent three two-hour programs going through the testimony of the alleged “witnesses” at the Pentagon. Not more than three said anything that was significant. Don’t you know about “Pandora’s Black Box” or “National Security Alert”? No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and anyone who tell you different is blowing smoke. Did you miss what Major General Stubbelbein has had to say about this? Try “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots”! Unbelievable!

      • Jim I already took you to school regarding 911 being an Israeli government operation including your twisting of Sabrosky’s statement in another article, I can do it again with the Pentagon by bringing out my links again and explaining the absurdity of producing a false flag plan which includes hitting the Pentagon with a missile and convincing the world it was hit by an airplane but it would be a waste of time, you’re not interested in the evidence and common sense.

        The witness stating the wing hit the ground is really not a big deal; other witnesses said the same thing but even if they are wrong due to their visual angle it doesn’t matter because they saw the very low flying plane hit the building as did numerous other witnesses.

        This was my objective for the post:

        Webmaster’s Commentary:

        As we get closer to the 10th Anniversary of the 9-11 false-flag attack, government propagandists are trying as hard as they can to push the no-plane nonsense to the forefront of the 9-11 truth movement, so that the media has a quick and easy means to ridicule and dismiss those who do not accept the official story.

        This post was really for the readers and not you, however, please show me a witness who saw a missile flying to the Pentagon or hitting the Pentagon. I don’t want any science explanation.

        • The wing did not hit the lawn. No plane hit the building. I have gone through the witness reports. If I know the evidence better than do you, I really don’t expect to benefit from your lectures. Maybe you missed when Donald Rumsfeld, no less, talked about a missile hitting the building! Have you seen the frame marked “plane” that was released by the Pentagon? Did you notice the white plume? Do you know that jet exhaust is not white, but that the exhaust from a missile would be? There is more to this, but I am not going to address it here and now. See “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”. Far from “twisting” anything, I replied by quoting the Sabrosky email in which he agreed with me! I don’t know where you are coming from, but it’s not good.

  27. Jim, it seems to me, after reading your article, that you may have read Dr. Judy Wood’s book and are eluding to the technology that she describes in her book.. Personally. she provided closure to the questions of how the towers were destroyed, if only people were open-minded to the research that she brilliantly compiled for everyone….
    You are completely accurate in your assessment that there exists another false 9/11 truth conspiracy that is attempting to lead everyone in the wrong direction…. for a very long time…

    • I featured Judy for the first time on my radio program on 11 November 2006. I have been attacked for doing that ever since. (See, for example, “The Debate about 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”, VT.) I would have her back fourteen more times. I published a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), which is the only publication of her work of which I am aware apart from her own website at drjudywood.com and her new book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (2010). I also featured her at the Madison conference, which I organized in August 2007, and gave her an unprecedented THREE HOURS TO SPEAK. It’s all in “The Science and Politics of 9/11″ DVD, which includes the entire 14.5 hours of the conference.

      I would still be featuring her on my show; indeed, in my “Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer” column, I had the cover of her book, until she demanded that it be taken down. She is apparently upset with me for having asked John Hutchison (who accompanied her during her last appearance) some questions about his background and education, since this area of research–electromagnetism–is among the most complex in physics. He blew me off with the response that he had “flunked crayons and coloring books”, which Judy thought was hilarious. For reasons I cannot explain, she has decided I am her enemy and has launched multiple attacks upon me, which I discuss in the comments thread for “Confessions of a 9/11 Truth Activist”.

  28. Rather than causing infighting, wouldn’t it be more helpful for you to use your verbal talents for the needed real official investigation of the 9-11 false flag treason. You are intentionally degrading very real evidence whether you want it or not simply because you can’t take credit for the collection? Your ego is apparently more important than ultimate justice?

    • Why are you posting such drivel? If we don’t have our facts straight, how can we launch a crusade for “ultimate justice”? There seem to be quite a few like you who seem to think that we can go off half-cocked with any lame-brain theory and GET JUSTICE!

      Well, the folks who claim to have figured it out GOT IT WRONG! If we had not been led down a primrose path, we might have accomplished a great deal in the past five years. But A&E has not even been willing to TEST FOR EXPLOSIVES. I don’t get people like you.

      I have addresses the perps in “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda” and “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?” as well as in presentations such as “Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?”, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621. Do you think we should lie our way into the court room?

  29. At first glance Jim Fetzer has inflated the quanity of nano thermite Dr. Niels Harrit said was used by a factor of 3000 times. Dr. Harrit said more than 10 tons and maybe up to 100 tons, This article states up to 100,000 tons per tower. Normally this would be considered Misinformation but since Jim Fetzer is an academic, this was no accident.

    Therefore people will see it as Disinformation on the part of Jim Fetzer.

    See the interview at 5 minutes in; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
    Donna

    • Well, any quantitative calculations would have been made by T. Mark Hightower, who is a chemical engineer. I am not quite sure where Donna Thomas is coming from, but the points that I have just made to Mr. Lee apply to Ms. Thomas as well. I will invite Mark to check it and, if we have misstated any figures, then we will correct them.

      I don’t quite get the inference from “Fetzer is an academic” to “Fetzer is disinformation”, which obviously does not follow. Fetzer is a philosopher of science and collaborator on this paper, which was principally authored by T. Mark Hightower. That’s what it means when it says (of authorship), “T. Mark Hightower (with Jim Fetzer)”.

      If Ms. Thomas can’t get that much right, there isn’t a lot of hope that she has anything else right. I seem to recall Mark had even confirmed his figures with Harrit, but we’ll check it out. If we have something wrong, we will correct it. That’s one of the benefits of the use of quantitative calculations. They are easier to check.

    • The easiest way for me to address this is to simply submit the email that Niels Harrit sent me and many others on 7/26/2011 where he submitted his calculation. So here it is pasted below.

      Mr. Hightower.

      This is meant as an order-of-magnitude estimate only. Every assessment will
      be conservative so that the final volume of applied thermitic material
      should be a safe lowest-limit.

      The RJ Lee Group carried out an investigation of the WTC dust very early
      following 9/11.[1] Their reports were published in 2003[2] and in 2004.[3] A
      wealth of findings therein indicated extreme temperatures during and
      preceeding the collapse.[4] But most importantly, in the present context,
      the RJ Lee group found a whopping 5.87% content of iron-rich spheres in the
      dust (see Table 3, p.28 in the 2003 report). In the same table a 0.04% is
      reported as the expected value in normal building dust. So 5.83% of the
      finding must be considered abnormal.

      According to the RJ Lee group, the dust was pushed through pedestrian
      tunnels that connected WTC2 to the adjacent Deutsche Bank Building at 130
      Liberty Street where RJ Lee Group took samples.[1] If any change in
      composition due to gravity occured during this event, it must have reduced
      the relative amount of iron-rich spheres present in the dust, since iron has
      a density of 7.9 g/cm3, while that of e.g. concrete is much lower, as it can
      vary from 2,.3 to 3.4 g/cm3. That is, a content of 5.83% iron-rich spheres
      is a lower limit for the dust produced at the WTC2 site.

      The only explanation for the presence of iron-rich spheres in these
      quantities is the occurrence of thermitic processes (paint, incendiaries,
      explosives) preceeding the collapses or during the collapses of the Twin
      Towers.

      The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2
      million tons of building materials were pulverized during the whole WTC
      event.[5] However, the lowest and most reliable estimate of the mass of one
      of the towers (WTC1 or WTC2) is 288.000 metric tons.[6] This is the ”raw”
      building. To this, let us add 50.000 tons, accounting for everything you put
      into such a tower, but subtract the 90.000 tons (too high, conservative)
      structural steel. Then, we end up with ca. 250.000 tons of pulverizable
      material per tower (WTC1 or WTC2).

      In order to stay on the absolutely safe side, let us subtract a further
      50.000 tonnes and say that the RJ Lee Group sampling was representative of
      200.000 tonnes pulverized tower.

      This means, that there were produced at least 0.0583 x 200000 = 11.660
      tonnes iron-rich spheres per tower. The iron-rich spheres contained varying
      trace amounts of aluminum and silicon (which in itself is an unambiguous
      proof of their thermitic origin). Since no overall quantitative estimate of
      these contaminants exist, let us lower the amount of pure iron formed in
      thermitic processes during and preceeding the collapse of one tower to
      10.000 tons.

      As I suggested, let us fancy a thermitic material with an ironoxide content
      of 10%. This is arbitrary. You may substitute this number with any other
      below, say, 50%.

      The molecular mass of Fe2O3 is 159.7, iron is 55.8 each. That is, ferric
      oxide produces 70% elemental iron upon reduction.

      So one kilo of the thermitic material can produce a maximum of 70 g iron.

      If we assume, that ALL the thermitic material should react to form iron
      spheres (please notice, that this is another highly conservative condition),
      RJ Lee Groups observation implies that:

      (10000 x 1000 x 1000)/70 = 143.000.000 kg =

      143.000 metric tons thermitic material

      was present in WTC2 prior to collapse.

      Of course, it is five times less, if the iron oxide content is 50%.

      Still, it’s a lot.

      Find the error!

      NH

      ——————————————————————————–

      [1]
      http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Microsoft-Dynamics-SL/RJ-Lee-Group/Scientific-Firm-Grows-Government-Business-More-Than-100-Percent-with-Accounting-System/4000005885

      [2]
      http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf

      [3]
      http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

      [4] http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

      [5] http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/wtc/wtc.pdf (and p.10 in the RJ Lee
      Group 2004 report).

      [6] http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf

  30. From the article: The danger of promoting a false theory or of overselling a weak hypothesis to millions of people is that it may someday be a convenient way to close the book on the entire issue.

    Brian: Just like the absurd no planes theory.

    • Brian, my only problem with you and others like you is that you appear to be unaware of the evidence. Are you disputing that nanothermite cannot have done what has been claimed on its behalf? Presumably, not. But do you then believe that a Boeing 767 could fly at 560 mph at 700-1,000′ altitude? make an entry into the South Tower in violation of Newton’s laws? pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air?

      If you think there is a case to be made, then present it. Otherwise, you are one more who wants to stand up for false theories about 9/11–which is the wrong way to go. If 9/11 Truth is not based upon truth, then what does it stand for? We are not trying to defeat the movement but to keep it from false theories about the Twin Towers as well as about Shanksville and the Pentagon. Just out of curiosity, are you also among those who believe that a Boeing 757 REALLY DID hit the Pentagon?

      I think you ought to give this more serious thought.

      • Jim, I’m suggesting if the no planes theory is reported on FOX, NBC, ABC etc. the American people, right or wrong, will be stunned and will think the 911 truthers are lunatics. I think you know that’s true. They won’t care about the science, they’re too busy watching Internet porn.

        The Jewish Zionist media can destroy the 911 truth movement with the no planes theory or just the theory the Pentagon was not hit by a plane. They’ll bring out all the Pentagon photographs the eyewitnesses, the air traffic controllers who watched the plane on the radar screens and perhaps they’ll find the Mike Rivero quote on the Internet which states: Hundreds of people saw the plane fly towards the Pentagon. Not one witness saw it fly away. Where did it go if not into the building?

        Jim, with your status the Jewish Zionists media could destroy the 911 truth movement by presenting your no planes theory to the public in an eight minute feature. You’ll be screaming at your television.

        AN AIRPLANE HIT THE PENTAGON. I have placed my evidence in one of your articles and other VT articles so I’m not going to place it again and get back into that argument. I strongly suggest you interview Jamie McIntyre of CNN. He can tell you what he saw at the Pentagon that day and provide you with powerful photographs including the one with thousands of small shards of the plane with the firefighters in the background. The photographs are even available on the Internet.

        Nope I have not been duped by the Mossad/sayanim scheme to convince 911 truthers a missile hit the Pentagon; which implies the US government did 911.

        • Well, you sound like a serious person, Brian. I am not always right but in this case you are definitely wrong. Have you looked at “Pandora’s Black Box” from Pilots for 9/11 Truth? or “National Security Alert” from CIT? or the photos I have presented in “Seven Questions about 9/11″? I’ll go back and take a look and see if you have anything to which I should respond.

          We have had two major obstacles to 9/11 Truth: one is a believable theory (about nanothermite) that turns out to be false; the other is an unbelievable theory (about video fakery) that turns out to be true. Once the American people realize that 9/11 was A STAGED EVENT WITH SPECIAL EFFECTS, like the black smoke from dumpsters used to intimidate Congress, they will “Get it!”

          They could not use real planes, because (1) they had to explain the explosions in the sub-basements, (2) they had to get the planes entirely into the buildings to have a pseudo-explanation for their “collapse”, and (3) it is very difficult to hit a 208′ facade with a plane. To insure the penetration, which would have been impossible with a real plane, they had to use the image of a plane instead.

          A hologram could travel faster than a real plane, enter the building in violation of Newton’s laws, and pass its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. And I have explained this so many times now, if it could be used against us, they would have used it by now. We are a visual culture. Americans would GET “video fakery”!

      • Your BS nano-thermite/thermate “Dr Steven Jones” disinfo paints your true colors.
        You are a pathetic gatekeeper of the worst kind.
        Thermite can’t cause molecular dissociation (plasma)
        Go back to school!

        • DDL, you are completely off-base. Mark and I are CRITICS of the “explosive nanothermite” theory. Either you have not remotely understood our article or else you have been missing your meds. I leave it to you to sort out for yourself, but this is a MASSIVELY IGNORANT post. You have missed the boat on this one, BIG TIME!

      • Mr Fetzer, debunking you as an intel agent is easier then basic math. Infact, if I weren’t positive of you being who you say you are, (and I’m not) I’d swear that you are Dr Steven Jones pretending to be Jim Fetzer. In just a few minutes, I will debunk Jone’s latest paper, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from 9/11 WTC Catastrophe” as pure BS. I’m “assuming” you have read this nonsense to be so blatantly supporting it…..correct?
        First, there are huge problems with the authorship – Gregg Roberts has a B.A. in psychology…..psychology?….Really???…..he has no degrees in physical science, so why is he listed as co-authoring a work on alleged advanced chemical physics?
        Next we have Jone’s proclamation of “peer reviewed,” which it is NOT. This is called “pay to play” publishing in the Bentham Open Journal.
        Next we come to the crux of this paper which can be gathered from it’s abstract. “We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the WTC…”
        On page 28, the authors indicate they are so concernrd that all they have are paint chips (and iron oxide rust) that they conclude this paragraph, “To merit consideration, and any assertion that a prosiac substance such as paint could match the characteristics we have described would have to be accompanied by emperical demonstration using a sample of the proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses. (so it might just be paint chips!)
        On page 25, we have the curious statement, “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 is just one of many statements Jones makes indicating they don’t know what they have, but have merely declared it to be super duper nano-thermite. At this point Jones is starting to sound like Judy Wood of the DEW (non) hypothesis crowd.
        Their OWN statements indicate that another explosive compound was necessary and that the nano-thermite was acting like a match to ignite another explosive compound. Their own paper allows for the complete eradication of the Thermite Limited Hangout. Oneself, and one’s cronies do NOT constitute a set of impartial peers. (See how the disinfo agents work?)
        Lastly, this is also the hidden reason Jone’s penultimate paper actually has him claiming “unextinguishable fires” for his beloved thermite in the rubble pile. He once more tries to usurp the properties of U-235, and the China Syndrome for his thermite BS. Jones knows full and well that the constant hosing down of the rubble pile was SOP to try to lower the radiation and heat from the U-235. He also knows that such methods are amelioration only, and that the real “unextinguishable fires” are radioactive ones!

        • Bud
          You are clearly a dedicated man. Help us get some folks arrested and let Jones and Fetzer play “science.”

          • Gordon, No one is going to be arrested if we don’t get the science right! DDL doesn’t realize we are NOT DEFENDING Jones and his mistaken theory of “explosive” nanothermite but CRITIQUING IT. I probably agree with all of DDL’s criticisms, but he has me confused with Steven Jones! This is non-trivial science and indispensable to bringing any perps to justice. DDL has blown it and owes Mark and me an apology.

        • STRAW MAN ALERT.
          http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/thermite-hypothesis-versus-controlled.html

          ‘Thermite Hypothesis’ versus ‘Controlled Demolition Hypothesis’: a response to ‘The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis’

          Conclusions:

          Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds have failed to discuss Jones’ full hypothesis in their essay, therefore they have failed to answer his full argument.

          Even if the arguments presented by Wood and Reynolds in this essay were completely valid, they do not challenge Steven Jones’ controlled demolition hypothesis in any meaningful way. Effectively, their argument attempts to disprove the type of incendiary/explosive/cutter-charge used—there is no attempt to discredit the possibility of other explosives being used. Their list of objections completely ignores the fact that Jones’ actual theory involves explosives in combination as well as the eleven features of controlled demolition.

          Ignoring evidence is not scientific and frequently results in biased and unscientific conclusions. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds are entitled to any legitimate criticisms of Steven Jones. They are not entitled to distort his positions and present deceptive arguments. As they have written papers on Jones’ research in the past, they have no excuse for these misleading arguments.

          • The straw man involves presenting an exaggerated version of an argument in order to make it easier to attack, especially when a more accurate version is readily at hand. Camron Wiltshire seems to be a specialist in the deployment of straw men, since this attack on Reynolds and Wood, which takes Steve Jones to task for not having adequately justified his theory of incendiary/explosives/cutter-charges having been used to take down the Twin Towers.

            But this is a very odd argument to make in the discussion thread of this article, which demonstrates that Jones has never properly established the properties of nanothermite, whose properties are not comparable even to TNT. That nanothermite could be combined with high explosives to become explosive is true but trivial. As patiently as Mark Hightower and I have explained this point, I have to infer that Wiltshire is either a slow learner or has an agenda of his own.

            That Jones has not understood the nature of scientific method and has pursued one hypothesis without recognizing that its explanatory merits cannot be established separate and apart from comparison with alternative explanations has been evident at least since 17 May 2007. This guy needs to go to http://911scholars.org, scroll down to “The Science of 9/11, and read “The Manipulation of the 9/11 Community”, because the “hard science” has not been practicing science.

    • I have addressed this kind of rubbish several times. In “Is ’9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”, we quoted from Richard Gage and from David Ray Griffin, who were wholeheartedly endorsing the proposition that nanothermite is a “high explosive” and that it could have performed all of the feats attributed to it by Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, among others, where Steve told me personally in LA in June 2006 that it could have blown apart the buildings, pulverized concrete, and destroyed steel. So this guy is wrong on the facts.

      Moreover, if it was ONLY a component, then WHY is it the case, as Steve Fahrney has reported in “Confessions of a 9/11 Truth Activist”, that A&E will not allow discussion of alternative theories and has never bothered to test for “other explosives”, which would have been an obvious necessity for a scientific society, if it believed that nanothermite had only done part but not all of the job? I know that shills like this guy are going to continue to post trash, but any reasonable person should be able to sort out his allegations from the reality.

    • I recommend that people get their information first hand by reading the nano-thermite paper and not from highly biased people who misstate the facts. It is written so that the average person can understand all but a few very technical parts.
      http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

      The RJ Lee Group studied the WTC dust that was forced into every nook and cranny in the Bankers Trust building across the street from the Trade Towers. They determined that iron was melted [2800 degrees F] during the WTC event creating microscopic and up to 1/16 inch spheres that made up nearly 6% of the dust. Normal is about 0.04%.

      The NYPD Museum has guns on display that are encased in concrete that was so hot it melted [3270 degrees F] and flowed around everything in its path.

      These two very credible sources establish beyond a reasonable doubt that temperatures 1,000 degrees hotter than jet fuel or office fires can attain occurred during the collapse and in the debris pile. The only known source for those temperatures is some form of thermite.

      • Chris, while I admire your devotion to the “hard science” group that brought us the myth of explosive nanothermite, I am just the least bit puzzled by your suggestion that Mark or I are “biased”. What do you think you mean by that? We–Mark in particular–wrote to the leaders of the movement about his findings early on. He published “The Nano-thermite Challenge” in a very public fashion on my blog and elsewhere. The only response was the reaffirmation of their stance that “thermite is a high explosive” or that “thermite can be formulated as a high explosive”. Kevin Ryan even put up a very misleading and deceptive post about “The Explosiveness of Nanothermite”, which Mark dissected during a two-hour interview with me on “The Real Deal”. Have you been told something different?

        Perhaps you did not notice the ambiguity of the conclusion of the nano-thermite paper, which says it can be used as a pyrotechnic (incendiary) or as a (high) explosive. But therein lies the rub. For an explosive to qualify as a high explosive it has to have a detonation velocity far in excess of the 895 m/s of nano-thermite. I am guessing you know that to destroy materials using shock-waves, that velocity must be equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material, which is 3,200 m/s for concrete and 6,100 m/s for steel. Surely you can see that a velocity of 895 m/s is considerably less than 3,200 m/s and vastly less than 6,100 m/s. So precisely what information are readers going to obtain from the original article, which does not even explain this crucial point? Please tell me what “bias” you find here.

        Not only did Mark discover that nanothermite does not have the energetic potential to do the kind of work required to blow apart these two buildings, pulverize concrete or destroy steel, he has now also recognized that the use of this incendiary is accompanied by dazzlingly bright light, which is illustrated in this article. If it had been used to destroy the Twin Towers, then we would have expected brilliant light to be omnipresent or, at least, very widely visible in at least a random pattern. But no such visible effects were observed. So if you were in lingering doubt that we might be wrong and that nanothermite might have been the cause of the buildings destruction, you can rest assured that that cannot be the case, since it does not have the explosive potential required and effects it would have produced were not present.

        • Jim,
          You did not address the facts I presented. i.e. some form of thermite is the only known explanation for the extreme temperatures that melted iron and concrete.

      • The towers were nuked. Connect the dots and quit trying to create new laws od physics that don’t exist.

        • You are going to want to listen to my interview with Dwain Deets, which should be posted at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. He considered the collapse of WTC-7 from the point of view of four theories: FG (fire and gravity), EA (exotic accelerants, including nanothermite), DE (directed energy), and ND (nuclear devices). This is the kind of analysis we have been waiting. I think you will find it as fascinating as I did–in spite of some technical glitches in getting on the air at the beginning.

    • TJ, It’s a metaphor. I think you missed the message. We are not denying that nanothermite chips appear to have been found in the dust or that nanothermite is an incendiary that can be used to melt steel as in the case of thermite grenades. If that were all that had been claimed on behalf of nanothermite, then we could pack our bags and head home! But Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others have made exaggerated claims about its “explosive” potential, which is entirely different.

      On the basis of what they have been told by Jones, Ryan, and others, David Griffin and Richard Gage have committed themselves to the false theory that nanothermite could have been responsible for blowing the Twin Towers apart and converting most of its concrete and steel into very fine dust. The problem is that nanothermite can do NONE of those things, which means that, if the 9/11 Truth movement were to pursue justice on the basis of a false theory, it would be thrown out of court.

      Moreover, those who promote this false theory have ridiculed others who have alternative theories and have been unwilling to even go so far as to test for the presence of explosives! Something is wrong with this picture–and Mark and I are trying to square things away so that more competent scientific research can be conducted to figure out how it was done. We have been obstructed by a false theory, which has now been exposed, where we expect that a true theory of how this was done will emerge–and implicate the guilty!

      The prosecution of any crime requires connecting the crime itself to those who committed it. False theories make that impossible. We are doing what we can to insure that the 9/11 Truth movement is not based upon a false theory, where the strongest candidates for the truth now appear to involve the use of unconventional weaponry, such as mini-nukes (3rd or 4th generation, fission or fusion), lasers, masers, plasmoids, or some other form of directed energy weaponry. That, as I see it, is where things now stand.

  31. TJ, The problem is that the evidence does not support the occurrence of crashes involving Boeing 757s in Shanksville or at the Pentagon nor of Being 767s at the North Tower or at the South. This sounds very strange, I know, but the evidence suggests that, just as the believable theory of nano-thermite is false, the unbelievable theory of no Boeing crashes is true. Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled on that day. The alleged phone calls were faked. The government has never produced even one of millions of uniquely identifiable parts from those four crash sites. Neither the FBI nor the NTSB conducted crash investigations–for the first time in their history!

    Even FAA registration data has these planes in the air long after they were allegedly destroyed, where the planes corresponding to Flight 175 (which is supposed to have hit the South Tower) and to Flight 93 (which is supposed to have crashed in Shanksville) were not deregistered–you can think of it as a form of being “decommissioned”–until 28 September 2005! Special effects were used, such as producing billowing black smoke from a series of dumpsters in front of the Pentagon to intimidate the members of Congress, when they rushed out of the Capitol because of rumors that it was under attack. Only one source could have faked all of this–elements within the US government!

    Take a look at “Seven Questions about 9/11″, for example, and study the photographs from the Pentagon, if you have any doubts. The alleged hit point was on the ground floor, but there was no massive pile of aluminum debris from a 100-ton airliner: no wings, no tail, no bodies, seats, or luggage! Not even the engines were recovered–and they are practically indestructible. While those civilian lime-green were extinguishing the modest fires in the building (which appear to have been caused by explosives planted there), the lawn was completely smooth, green, and unblemished–with no debris at all! Read about it, think about it, and get back–because 9/11 was a staged event!

  32. Well, I lived through it, TJ. Check out “Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op” or “The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”. They split from Scholars because I had doubts about nanothermite and interviewed Judy Wood, who was suggesting that it was done using directed energy weapons–and, without endorsing her conclusion, so far as I can see, she has not yet been shown to be wrong!

  33. Well, I agree that we still don’t know how the Twin Towers were destroyed, which is no secret. If I can be shown to be wrong about any of this, that will be an advance in my understanding. So if you can show that I have drawn the wrong conclusions, show me the proof!

  34. Well, I appreciate your posts, TJ. I featured Dwain Deets on “The Real Deal” yesterday and he gave a masterful analysis of WTC-7 from the point of view of four theories: fire-and-gravity, exotic-accelerants (including nanothermite), nuclear devices and directed energy. It was fascinating. You can find his presentation at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwiLcI-oRSY&feature=youtu.be We need more of this. He will be returning to the show with a parallel study of the Twin Towers.

  35. It’s not that I am supporting her so much as that I do not yet know that she is wrong.

Comments are closed

 

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Join Our Daily Newsletter
  View Newsletter ARCHIVE

WHAT'S HOT

  1. Top 10 Veterans Stories in Today’s News – April 17, 2014
  2. Syrian opposition’s call on US, act of desperation
  3. Second Exodus: Israelites vs. Muslim Brotherhood
  4. VA Witch Hunt Leads to Veterans Suicides
  5. Uncle Sanchez from New York is Racist
  6. President Barack Obama, America’s Pol Pot
  7. Duplicitous Human Rights Misinformation on Ukraine
  8. Sen. Feinstein Rewards Rich Cronies at The Expense of Homeless Veterans
  9. Now is the Time to Enact the Wanta National Recovery Plan for Our Great Nation America
  10. US sanctions against Crimean officials are ‘silly, embarrassing’
  11. Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care
  12. ‘MH370 call exposing 9/11 cover-up?’
  13. NEO – Putin puts Ukraine gas payments on Europe’s back
  14. Challenging the “Holocaust Uniqueness” Doctrine (Part V)
  15. The Kosher Trinity and Jewish Quantum Mechanics
  16. Iran to Hold First International Shakespeare Conference
  17. VA Researchers Receive Nation’s Top Award for Early Career Scientists
  18. Sandy Hook Elementary School: closed in 2008, a stage in 2012
  19. VetLikeMe Weekly 4/11/14
  20. Speculators, Cartels & Myths of Scarcity
  1. dave: Forgot to add "LEGISLATIVE FORGERY" TO THE ABOVE, as "OUR" representatives "AREN'T", legislating laws for Veterans.
  2. ani: from victim to victory the war on the banksters must be won by the peoples for once and for all.
  3. ani: Chandler I was looking at that famous photo that horrified the world, taken in Vietnam, the one where the photographer made it his mission to find the girl after ...
  4. dave: Yea it's not only Detroit , the VA IS a "CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION" and they are "ABOVE THE LAW/S". Their people ARE NOT HELD "RESPONSIBLE OR ACCOUNTABLE" for any thing/s done ...
  5. ani: "The rich have got their chattels in the bedrooms of the poor…" From Leonard Cohen, these words entered my head as I read your comment Preston. While Lord Acton has famously said ...

Veterans Today Poll

When will the New World Order One World Government officially be announced?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Archives