9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

HOW INDEED CAN NANOTHERMITE BE EXPLOSIVE?
& THE NANOTHERMITE CHALLENGE


T Mark Hightower, B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering

INTRODUCTION

This paper explores the explosiveness of nanothermite.

Steven E. Jones made the error early in his research, of classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category as the high explosive RDX, with no published science to back up his claim. The 911 truth movement has never recovered from this error, for to this day nearly everyone in the movement refers to "explosive nanothermite," as even this clever cover for a fictitious "For Dummies" book illustrates. (1)

Examples of Jones confusing these issues are cited and commented upon. Two technical papers on nanothermite are cited to support my contention that nanothermite is not anywhere near being an explosive in the sense of a high explosive like RDX. These two papers are also cited on the issue of adding organics to nanothermites to produce gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) and I maintain that these papers suggest that the only way to make a nanothermite truly explosive is to combine it with an explosive or other high-explosive mechanism. “It's not the “nano” that makes it explosive. It's the explosive that makes it explosive.”

Finally, I make recommendations of what those who advocate the nanothermite theory for WTC destruction can do to clarify their position and I announce The Nanothermite Challenge.

EXAMPLES OF JONES CONFUSING THERMITE AND NANO-THERMITE WITH EXPLOSIVES

Here is a two-paragraph quote from Steven Jones' first paper. (2)

“Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.”

“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.” (2)

Here Jones puts thermite, HMX, and RDX in the same category. But thermite is totally different than HMX and RDX. Thermite is an incendiary. It gets very hot, it produces molten iron, it can melt steel, and it can catch things on fire, but it is absolutely not an explosive. It is not even a low explosive. On the other hand, HMX and RDX are high explosives. HMX detonates at 9,100 m/s (meters per second) and RDX detonates at 8,750 m/s. He also lumps all three under the category of cutter-charges, but a cutter-charge with thermite would be totally different than a cutter-charge with a high explosive. A thermite cutter-charge would cut by melting the steel with the high-temperature molten iron it produces (an extremely low velocity and slow process compared to high explosives), whereas an RDX cutter-charge would cut by the supersonic detonation of high explosives in what is known as a shaped charge, which essentially produces a supersonic projectile of molten metal (copper is often used in shaped charges) that instantly penetrates and severs the member.

Later in the paper Jones says

“"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust.” (2) And further down he says “Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. "Superthermites" are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the available data.” (2) From page 85 of a presentation that Jones gave early in his work (3), he says “Gel explosives: Tiny aluminum particles in iron oxide, in a sol-gel: “High energy density and extremely powerful” and “can be cast to shape”. http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html (Livermore Nat’l Lab, 2000) I have read the LLNL web page that Jones cites above (4) very carefully and I cannot find anything in it that implies that the “thermitic nanocomposite energetic material” referred to is an explosive. It refers to the result as a thermite pyrotechnic, releasing an enormous amount of heat, but it does not say that it is an explosive. In the web page another class is explained briefly, energetic nanocrystalline composites. "The Livermore team synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN." No mention is made here of thermite, so this wouldn't apply to Jones claiming that nanothermite is an explosive.
WTC Devastation by public domain

COMPARING NANOTHERMITE REACTION VELOCITIES TO EXPLOSIVE VELOCITIES

The explanation given for claiming that nanothermite is an explosive goes something like this. The thermite reaction is

Fe2O3 + 2 Al ---> 2 Fe + Al2O3

By making the particle sizes of the reactants smaller, down to the nanosize (approximately 30 nm to 60 nm) and mixing them well, the reaction takes place so fast that it becomes explosive. Let's look at some data from technical papers where the reaction velocity of nanothermites were measured and compare these values with the reaction velocities of explosives to see if it seems reasonable to call nanothermite an explosive.

A paper by Spitzer et al. published in the Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids in 2010 presents a variety of research on energetic nano-materials. (5) In one section they deal with nano-thermites made with tungsten trioxide (WO3) and aluminum nano-particles. They experimented with different particle sizes, but they highlight the mixture made with the smallest nano-particles of both WO3 and Al for its impressive performance.

“WO3/Al nano-thermites, which contain only nano-particles, have an impressive reactivity. The fireball generated by the deflagration is so hot that a slamming due to overpressure is heard. The combustion rate can reach 7.3 m/s. This value is extremely high compared to classical energetic materials.” (5)

A paper by Clapsaddle et al. published by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 2005 also contains some reaction rate data for nanothermite composed of nano-particles of Fe2O3 and aluminum. (6) In Figure 2. in the paper the combustion velocity is plotted versus percent SiO2 content. The highest values were obtained at zero percent SiO2, so those are the only values I am going to cite. The nanothermite produced by a sol gel process had the highest velocity of 40.5 m/s, compared to the one produced by a simple mixing of the nano-particles with a combustion velocity of 8.8 m/s. (6)

Compare the above combustion velocities of nanothermite with the detonation velocities of high explosives HMX and RDX of 9,100 m/s and 8,750 m/s, respectively, and they are dwarfed by the velocities of the conventional high explosives. Steven Jones appears to be calling the nanothermite reaction explosive only in the sense that it is reacting much faster than regular thermite, but not in the sense that it is anywhere near as explosive as a conventional high explosive. By failing to make this distinction Jones has misled nearly the entire 911 truth movement into believing that nanothermite is a super explosive, possibly even more powerful than conventional high explosives.

From the above, it is quite clear that the “nano” in nanothermite does not make the thermite explosive anywhere near the degree of a high explosive like RDX.

In addition to saying that nano-izing thermite makes it explosive, I have heard Jones say that adding organics to nanothermite also makes it explosive. This issue is explored in the next section.

CAN ANYTHING BE DONE TO MAKE A NANOTHERMITE EXPLOSIVE?

First I would like to quote an entire two paragraph section, with its title, from the LLNL paper. (6)

“Gas generating Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2-R (R = –(CH2)2(CF2)7CF3) nanocomposites. ”

“One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume-work on an object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects. Typically, work can be done by a rapidly produced gas that is released during the energetic reaction. Towards this end, the silica phase of sol-gel prepared oxidizers, in addition to modifying the burning velocities, has also been used to incorporate organic functionality that will decompose and generate gas upon ignition of the energetic composite [3-4, 7]. Phenomenological burn observations of these materials indicate that the Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2-R nanocomposites burn very rapidly and violently, essentially to completion, with the generation of significant amounts of gas. Figure 5 shows a comparison of the ignition of an energetic nanocomposite oxidizer mixed with 2 μm aluminum metal without (left) and with (middle) organic functionalization. The still image of the energetic nanocomposite without organic functionalization exhibits rapid ignition and emission of light and heat. The still image of the energetic nanocomposite with organic functionalization also exhibits these characteristics, but it also exhibits hot particle ejection due to the production of gas upon ignition. This reaction is very exothermic and results in the production of very high temperatures, intense light, and pressure from the generation of the gaseous byproducts resulting from the decomposition of the organic moieties.”

“These materials were also mixed with nanometer aluminum. Figure 5 (right) shows a still image of the ignition of the Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2-R nanocomposite mixed with 40 nm aluminum. This composite is much more reactive than the same oxidizing phase mixed with 2 μm aluminum metal; the burning of the composite with 40 nm aluminum occurs much too quickly to be able to observe the hot particle ejection. This observation is a good example of the importance mixing and the size scale of the reactants can have on the physical properties of the final energetic composite material. When the degree of mixing is on the nanoscale, the material is observed to react much more quickly, presumably due to the increase in mass transport rates of the reactants, as discussed above.” (6)

Note that in the title of the section quoted above, the symbol R is used to represent the organic functionality added to the nanothermite. In this case it is a 10 carbon atom straight chain functional group fully saturated, with hydrogen atoms on the first two carbon atoms of the chain and fluorine atoms on all the rest. I have not explored the precise energy level of this functional group, but I can tell by just looking at it that it will consume energy (from the thermite reaction) in order to break it down into multiple smaller molecules in order to get the expanding gases necessary to make it behave as explained. This is not an efficient way to make an explosive. I wouldn't expect the explosiveness to be anywhere near that of a conventional high explosive, and the qualitative description given in the paper certainly does not seem to support it being a true explosive, but unfortunately the paper does not give data on what its reaction rate would be. Wouldn't it be better if the organic added to the nanothermite was a molecule that, instead of consuming energy to drive its decomposition, actually produces energy as it decomposes? Such a molecule could be the RDX molecule. This leads to the quoted two-paragraph section below from the Spitzer et al. paper. (5)

“3. Gas generating nano-thermites ”

“Thermites are energetic materials, which do not release gaseous species when they decompose. However, explosives can be blended in thermites to give them blasting properties. The idea developed at ISL is to solidify explosives in porous inorganic matrixes described previously. Gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) are prepared by mixing Cr2O3/RDX and MnO2/RDX materials with aluminium nano-particles. The combustion mechanisms of these nano-thermites were investigated by DSC and high-speed video. In the case of Cr2O3-based GGNT, the decomposition of RDX induces the expansion and the fragmentation of the oxide matrix. The resulting Cr2O3 nano-particles, which are preheated by the combustion of the explosive, react violently with aluminium nano-particles. In the case of MnO2-based GGNT, the mechanism of combustion is somewhat different because the decomposition of RDX induces the melting of oxide particles. The droplets of molten MnO2 react with aluminium nano-particles.”

“The non-confined combustion of GGNT is rather slow (1-11 cm/s) in comparison with other nano-thermites presented here. However, in a confined environment their combustion rate is expected to be significantly higher. Indeed, the thermal decomposition of GGNT produces gaseous species, which contribute to increase the pressure and the combustion rate in accordance with the Vieille’s law. The thermal decomposition of miscellaneous GGNT compositions was studied in a closed vessel equipped with a pressure gauge. The GGNT were fired with a laser beam through a quartz window. The pressure signal was recorded along time for each material (Fig. 7). The pressure released by the combustion of a GGNT is directly linked to the RDX content of the nano-composite used to elaborate it. Depending on its formulation, a GGNT can provide a pressure ranging from a few bars to nearly three thousand bars.” (5)

I am surprised by the low number given for the reaction velocity, only 1-11 cm/s. Also, it does not say what percent RDX resulted in this low velocity. Maybe it was a very low content of RDX. But the main point I want to make about the above quoted section does not depend on this velocity anyway. The key point is that you have to blend explosives (like RDX) into nanothermite to make it an explosive (“give them blasting properties”).

WHAT NANOTHERMITE ADVOCATES NEED TO DO TO CLARIFY THEIR THEORY

Steven E. Jones and other nanothermite theory advocates should be upfront and truthful about these issues, and clearly elaborate upon the factors missing from their theory that need further fleshing out. It is not good enough to just say “explosive nanothermite” over and over again without explaining exactly what is meant by the term. If they think that incendiary thermite or incendiary nanothermite or low explosive nanothermite or high explosive nanothermite were used in cutter-charges, or some combination, then they should say so. The lack of or degree of explosiveness claimed, whether incendiary, low explosive, or high explosive, is key, because the type of cutter-charge used would depend on this. Once they clarify what they mean by their use of the term “nanothermite”, then they should start describing the quantities of thermite that would have been necessary for the destruction. Only by adding these details to their theory can it be fairly evaluated against alternative theories of the destruction of the buildings of the World Trade Center for the benefit of the wider 9/11 truth community.
___________________________________

THE NANOTHERMITE CHALLENGE

Find and document peer reviewed scientific research that demonstrates that a gas generating nanothermite (GGNT) based upon iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3) and aluminum (Al), where the gas generating chemical added to the nanothermite is not itself a high explosive, can be made to be a high explosive with at least a detonation velocity of 2000 m/s. The author of this paper will donate $100 for every 1000 m/s of detonation velocity that can be documented, the donation not to exceed $1,000. For example, if a detonation velocity of 5500 m/s can be documented, then the donation amount will be $550. Only one prize will be awarded in the form of a donation to AE911Truth, and it will be awarded based upon the highest detonation velocity that can be documented. Those submitting entries grant the author the right to publish their entries. Entries must be in the form of a brief (no longer than one page) write-up, with the peer reviewed research cited, and at least scanned copies (electronic pdf files) of the cover page(s) and pages relied upon of the technical papers, if not a submittal of the entire paper(s). Entries should be sent by email to DetonationVelocity@att.net by June 20, 2011. The award will be announced and paid by July 20, 2011.

1 May 2011

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: T. Mark Hightower began his awakening in January 2004 after having stumbled upon the Serendipity web site and learning that the explosive demolition theory for WTC destruction was a more probable explanation than was the official story.

http://www.serendipity.li/

He has worked as an engineer for nearly 30 years, initially in the chemical industry, then in the space program, and currently in the environmental field. He is a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).

His research on 9/11 is an exercise of his Constitutional rights as a private citizen and in no way represents his employer or the professional societies of which he is a member.

REFERENCES

(1) Fictitious Book Cover, “Explosives in the WTC for Dummies”

(2) Jones, Steven E., “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” Journal of 911 Studies, Volume 3, September 2006

(3) Jones, Steven E., “Answers to Objections and Questions,” Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, 18 July 2006

(4) LLNL Web page cited by Jones – “Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives,”

http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

(5) Denis Spitzer, Marc Comet, Christian Baras, Vincent Pichot, Nelly Piazzon, “Energetic nano-materials: Opportunities for enhanced performances,” Institut franco-allemand de recherches de Saint-Louis (ISL), UMR ISL/CNRS 3208, 5, rue du General Cassagnou, 68301 Saint-Louis, France,
Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 71 (2010) 100–108

(6) B. J. Clapsaddle, L. Zhao, D. Prentice, M. L. Pantoya, A. E. Gash, J. H. Satcher Jr., K. J. Shea, R. L. Simpson, “Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods,” March 25, 2005, Presented at 36th Annual Conference of ICT, Karlsruhe, Germany, June 28, 2005 through July 1, 2005 UCRL-PROC-210871, LLNL This paper is free to download at
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=0&page=0...

Views: 3035

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

http://youtu.be/JZNQq7XBLwc

Mark Basille, Chemical Engineer does an excellent job of explaining how nanothermite is used

Basille explains how thermite is used to eat through the silica base matrix. Thermitic reaction causes liquid iron and energy is released. 

AE911Truth's EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW!
Chemical Engineer Mark Basile - One of the scientists who found thermite
in the World Trade Center dust discusses in depth his process of discovery
using the scientific method.
This interview is some raw footage of one of the world class experts appearing in Architects and Engineer's upcoming hard hitting documentary
"9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"

"For thermite to be explosive, it has to be combined with explosives, where the same could be said of toothpaste. "

 

James Fetzer

 

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/02/misadventures-of-kevin-ryan...

Exactly. Hightower's point is that nanothermite is an incendiary only, not an explosive unless mixed with a known explosive agent. As far as I know, Hightower's Nanothermite Challenge has yet to be met.

 

I suggest that the advocates of the "Nanothermite alone position" conduct empirical tests to determine whether nanothermite can accomplish what they say it can.

 

For example:

It may seem difficult to model the destruction of a 110 story skyscraper with thermite/nanothermite but a mock-up with the exact configuration could conceivably be constructed or for that matter multiple exact replicas of Twin Tower buildings could be produced. Each identical model could then be destroyed utilizing various explosives, conventional and unconventional including C4, RDX, thermite/nano-thermite etc in appropriate scaled-down amounts after which the results of each explosive event/damage could be studied. The result of each explosive event/damage could then be compared to the actual 911 event and the known resulting damage. It may be that none of the explosives subjected to testing could mimic the destructive events of 911 at Ground Zero which would strongly suggest either DEW or nuclear explosive events of one form or another.

 

One would think that after nearly 10 years, an empirical investigation of similar type would already have been completed. Maybe it has.

We can thank Mr. Hightower for showing us that even "Nano-thermate or Nano-thermite" provides the explosive strength needed to explain what was observed in the videos.  And also we can thank Dr. Fetzer for his blogs.

 

 

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2011-01-01T00%3A...

 

"even in its nano form, unless combined with high explosives or another high-explosive mechanism, cannot be a high explosive.

"

 

Harrit suggests the use of “a modern military material which is unknown to the general public” as an explanation for the missing pieces to the 9/11 nanothermite puzzle. He urges a new investigation, whereby NIST will test WTC dust samples for remaining explosives and thermitic material. But he also seems to be saying that he and his fellow 9/11 researchers do not consider it worthwhile to pursue further analysis beyond their current findings."

 

This tells me, Dr. Hubert, that Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit have no plans for further study.  

 

In my opinion, Dr. Jones' and others' "peer reviewed studies" of the dust samples accomplished the purpose for which they were intended.  In fact, they did such a splindid job that nothing more needs to be done.   The 9-11 truth movement was led down a rabbit trail and most of the "truthers" are still running around in that dead-end trail right now.

 

I had stated before that my litmus test was if a person accepted or rejected the official story of 9-11.  I guess I have qualified that to some extent over the years.  Many like Dr. Steven Jones and Mr. Richard Gage appear to be pursuing work that is contrary to the oficial story but in fact they really are still operating a scheme that allows for the basic outline of the official story to be true.  I think having Islamic hijackers and real passenger planes are parts of that basic outline.

 

They all know there will not be, will never be, a new independent investigation and yet Colonel Bob Bowman and so many others have that request as their primary mantra.

 

 

According to Chuck Boldwyn's research , the whole job at WTC complex was done with a combo of thermate and an explosive, maybe mini nukes.  So they probably had two jobs:  one:  cut the steel core columns up into little pieces, and two:  blow the fracture energy of the concrete and other materials into 60 micron dust, so they needed both methods.

His research seems to be getting more support  .  

It certainly could be.

 

My understanding is that it is difficult to explain the 3 month long molten metal (China Syndrome) that was present after 9/11 with the mini nuke explanation. I see the Anonymous Physicist has a theory about how multiple mininukes might have been used in such a way as to cause a 3 month long "China Syndrome."  He and William Tahil both believe that a "China Syndrome" was preesnt for at least 3 months--very persuasive arguments.

 

William Tahil wrote a book which is available on-line in which he says that there existed a nuclear reactor beneath each Twin Tower. He claims that the dust sample data and the "China Syndrome" which ensued virtually proves it. The Anonymous Physicist even though he disagrees about the nuclear reactors does say that he thinks everyone should read Tahil's book as well as his essays because Tahil may be right. Click HERE for Tahil's book. Click HEREfor the Anonymous Physicist's comments. I would like to discuss the two in more detail.



Jeannon Kralj said:

We can thank Mr. Hightower for showing us that even "Nano-thermate or Nano-thermite" provides the explosive strength needed to explain what was observed in the videos.  And also we can thank Dr. Fetzer for his blogs.

 

 

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2011-01-01T00%3A...

 

"even in its nano form, unless combined with high explosives or another high-explosive mechanism, cannot be a high explosive.

"

 

Harrit suggests the use of “a modern military material which is unknown to the general public” as an explanation for the missing pieces to the 9/11 nanothermite puzzle. He urges a new investigation, whereby NIST will test WTC dust samples for remaining explosives and thermitic material. But he also seems to be saying that he and his fellow 9/11 researchers do not consider it worthwhile to pursue further analysis beyond their current findings."

 

This tells me, Dr. Hubert, that Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit have no plans for further study.  

 

In my opinion, Dr. Jones' and others' "peer reviewed studies" of the dust samples accomplished the purpose for which they were intended.  In fact, they did such a splindid job that nothing more needs to be done.   The 9-11 truth movement was led down a rabbit trail and most of the "truthers" are still running around in that dead-end trail right now.

 

I had stated before that my litmus test was if a person accepted or rejected the official story of 9-11.  I guess I have qualified that to some extent over the years.  Many like Dr. Steven Jones and Mr. Richard Gage appear to be pursuing work that is contrary to the oficial story but in fact they really are still operating a scheme that allows for the basic outline of the official story to be true.  I think having Islamic hijackers and real passenger planes are parts of that basic outline.

 

They all know there will not be, will never be, a new independent investigation and yet Colonel Bob Bowman and so many others have that request as their primary mantra.

 

 Error

 

 

I am not knowledgeable enough to discuss physics aspects but I have listened to Chuck B on 4 shows and I am open to the idea that mini nukes may have been used.  But I believe I heard him say that the thermate was wrapped in super explosives and that is what made them super explosive.  CB maintains that the big columns needed to be cut so that is why Thermate was used.  On one show I think he said that the columns were but through but still upright so that it was the nukes that accomplished the rest of the job.

I do not know why CB says the thermate or nanothermate needed to be wrapped in explosives if it was there only to do the cutting function and to me, it would also seem like wrapping it in explosives would interfere with the cutting function.    Also, I don't know why the nukes alone could not have done the whole job. 

 

It just seems like paying much attention to the thermite is an exercise in nonsense.  It may have been there but it could not have done what we have to explain, that is , the data or "evidence."

 

Dr. Wood says there were a few large undestroyed steel beams but she says she has no knowledge or real proof that large quantities of steel were sold and shipped overseas.

 

The "China Syndrome" term is a new term here in these discussions.  Would need to know exactly what it means in terms of ground zero phenomena.  The odd things went on for well over a year and I think there are still some evidences going on.  There was one building that they tried to repair but it immediately had to torn down and now they keep delaying new construction in that spot.  I think it is a bank building.  Apparently there are still odd phenomena going on.

Jeannon : "Also, I don't know why the nukes alone could not have done the whole job."

 

I will offer my own opinion as to this.  I would expect that with the "elastic" properties of steel ( it behaves like a rubber band when distorted and then returns to its former configuration due to the unique bonding structure within metals), the mini nuke shock wave would not be as effective at pulverizing the steel into small dust as it would be on the concrete, which is very inelastic in its properties.  So these two materials have very different physical properties , so I think it likely that the steel would also require the thermate to eat it chemically as CB describes to us.  If they had just used mini nukes, it is my opinion that the rest of the building would have been pulverized but much of the mass of the core steel columns would have remained as a tall spine.  This would have cost problems and money for Larry Silverstein later because he wanted a total demolition on his property.  Chuck has offered the suggestion that papers have been written already with evidence of small steel spheres and AlO white clouds which are evidence of a thermitic reaction (his posters here somewhere show the chemical reaction).  

 

I believe over time, evidence will continue to support Chuck's research.  

Jeannon:

 

I think you would find both of the links I provided above to be fascinating. Here is another one where you can see that the nuclear topic is being discussed by people including the "China Syndrome" (just a term used to describe a core meltdown in a nuclear reactor).

http://norfidid.wordpress.com/part-2-of-4-were-mini-nuke-bombs-the-...

The idea is that the core meltdown is so "hot" that it could penetrate through any metal, soil, concrete etc. and "burrow all the way to China."

 

The advocates of the nuclear reactor(s) beneath the Twin Towers idea claim that the nuclear reactors were purposely allowed to go critical by not cooling the fuel rods of uranium 235 and that nuclear explosions occured which went right up through all 104 stories of each tower. Check out the links. They are really quite informative.

 

Thank you,  I will check out the links.

 

"nuclear explosions occured which went right up through all 104 stories of each tower."

 

This idea seems to contradict the evident top - down destruction that we saw on the videos of the twin towers..

Thermite/nano thermite/super thermate react at 4500ºF, whether it is explosive or

just incendiary. Molten iron would also be produced in great quantity at the same

approximate temperature of a light bulb filament. It does not produce cold iron microspheres.

Molten iron thrown from the violent reaction and falling would shape these microspheres while still molten.

This is not what we see. We don't see light - just dust and ash.

 

Nukes are right out; any known nuclear bomb will be so luminescent in visible and IR ranges,

as well as higher energy UV, x-rays and gamma rays that videos would be washed out completely, and people watching would be blinded.

 

Temperatures of nuclear reactions: http://911scholars.ning.com/photo/temperatures-of-fission?context=user

 

Where is the heat and light?

 

 

 

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service