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: 3371

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks for the reply, Chuck.

The inventor of the neutron bomb, and the so-called mini-neutron bomb believes the United States is in eminent danger of a terrorist nuclear attack. When I first interviewed him on my national radio talk show last April he was given little attention by the press. Now that top Russian military are confirming Sam Cohen's claims, maybe now people will listen to what he has to say.
 
After a 40-year career in nuclear weapons development, Sam Cohen is now retired. During World War II he was assigned to the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos. After the war Cohen went to work for the Rand Corporation as a nuclear weapons analyst. In 1958 he developed the technical and military concept of the neutron bomb. He has continued to serve as a consultant to the Los Alamos and Livermore, the U.S. Air Force, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
 
Cohen had long been an advocate of discriminate use of mini-nuke battlefield weapons. He proposed their use time and time again, but politicians refused to back his suggestions.
 
Cohen to this day makes a strong argument for rapid victory in Korea and Vietnam through the use of grapefruit sized neutron bombs. "If we had a sizable stockpile of discriminate mini-nukes, it the war would have ended very quickly in our favor," Cohen says of the controversial military conflicts. His proposal to the Johnson administration was turned down very firmly.
 
When the U.S. began preparations for the Persian Gulf War, Cohen presented his proposal again. This time it was the Bush administration that turned a deaf ear. Cohen even published an article about his proposal for use of mini-nukes in the Los Angeles Times. "It was clear to me that we should stop the massive buildup of conventional weapons and instead use mini-nukes," explained Cohen.
 
He claims his article won the support of a handful of congressmen who spoke in support of his proposal. However, the Bush administration strengthened itís determination to accomplish the task with conventional weapons alone.
 
"Nuclear weapons, no matter how low-yield and discriminate they may be, have been politically ruled out for use on the battlefield. Better that we might suffer hundreds of thousands of casualties in a conventional war, and maybe even fail in our objectives, than to use mini-nukes to win in short order. This may be politically correct, but morally something seems to be sadly lacking," Cohen concluded.
 
He pointed out that Congress passed legislation during the Bush administration, with continued endorsement by the Clinton administration, that forbids the testing, development, or stockpiling of mini-nukes. He also insists that Congress and the President are well aware that other countries as well as anti-American terrorists have an ample supply.
 
Cohen says he has numerous contacts in the intelligence community who are as concerned as he is. He claims they have confirmed to him that the spread of nuclear capabilities in potential enemy areas of the world is growing rapidly. His greatest concern is a new class of very small, very cheap, extremely effective warheads, based solely on nuclear fusion (thereby circumventing the monitoring terms of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty). These weapons are in effect mini-neutron bombs whose use would render our high-tech conventional forces useless.
 
"These warheads were developed during the Soviet era but work has continued under the Russian regime. There is an abundance of evidence that the underlying technology and ingredients for these devices have been smuggled out of Russia and sold to a number of nations, including terrorist ones," claims Cohen, who is upset that the U.S. is ignoring this intelligence data. Over 100 missing mini-nukes were recently reported on 60-minutes, and Cohen claims this has happened with the complicity of the Russian government, including Boris Yeltsin, and the assistance of the Russian mafia.
 
A terrorist could easily hand carry one of these mini-nukes in a suit case or even a paper bag. According to Cohen, it could be placed in the park across the street from the White House, or other strategic target, and detonated by timer or remote control. This type of neutron bomb would destroy every living thing for a radius of 500 yards, yet physical objects and buildings would be undisturbed. Nuclear radiation would also be quickly rendered harmless.
 
Because there is no mushroom cloud, or even an explosion, Cohen claims testing of such weapons cannot be detected in other countries. "So in effect we have legally denied ourselves the ability to develop and stockpile these weapons while giving an open hunting license to the rest of the world to acquire them if they so wish, with little if any fear that they will be discovered, even for countries that are party to the non-proliferation and test ban tactics," said an obviously worried Cohen.
 
Have we then deliberately given our enemies and potential enemies the capability to defeat our conventional ground forces? Have we enabled terrorists and anti-American radicals the ideal weapon to bring us to our knees? Cohen says very emphatically, "yes!"
 
Cohen warns that the age of nuclear weapons has not come to an end. Despite our arms control efforts, he believes mini-nuke battlefield weapons already exist and will continue to proliferate around the world. Cohen is warning that unless the U.S. takes immediate action, the next major conflict will be decided by the army that is first to use a mini-nuke on the battlefield. He also warns that evidence is very strong that such weapons are already in the hands of terrorists who are plotting an attack in a major U.S. city or cities.


Response From Kevin Nelson
10-30-97
 
Please note:
 
A terrorist could easily hand carry one of these mini-nukes in a suit case or even a paper bag. According to Cohen, it could be placed in the park across the street from the White House, or other strategic target, and detonated by timer or remote control. This type of neutron bomb would destroy every living thing for a radius of 500 yards, yet physical objects and buildings would be undisturbed. Nuclear radiation would also be quickly rendered harmless."
 
Such bombs would not be fusion devices, unless they made use of cold-fusion techniques.
 
Fision bombs could be easily made, if you had bomb-grade plutonium or uranium. All you need is just a tad less than is required for critical mass to occur. However, these would not be "clean". Any unfissioned material may end up vaporized.
 
There would be an explosion. But nothing like that expected for a supra-critical mass device. Neutrons would be the primary type of energy release. But the heat generated from the initialization of the nuclear event would create a thermal explosion that would demolish at least a car. Such an explosion would be detectable from space. But since it would be of such short duration and over such a small area, it would be difficult to distinguish it from non-nuclear events.

So where are we headed here? Are we back to absolving the perps and saying that it was really

Arab terrorists hand carrying these mini-nukes into the towers in their lunch bags?

While there may be no nuclear explosion signature detectable from seismic networks, there is still

high heat, and a neutron flux that would leave many in the 500 yard radius stone cold dead.

 

Blessings, Shallel

I see that this thread has drifted over to the mini-nukes focus again.  That's OK but the thread is really about rebutting Dr. Jones and company, and concomittanly rebutting the "thermite" hypothesis.  Remember thermite has been communicated by Jones and company to us as the agent that created the fine dust.  I think if Chuck is going to maintain thermite as an indespensable ingredient in his scheme, Chuck had better speak to us about its "explosiveness" that is so often spoken of by the originator of the thermite idea, and speak to us also about thermite's  ability make all the dust or fine particles.  It now seems that we are being baited and switched to the mini-nukes making the dust....

 

 

 

Here is a classic tidbit that exists on this forum...

 

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:21:47 -0500 [11:21:47 AM CDT]
From: "Morgan Reynolds"
To: "jfetzer@d.umn.edu" , "Michael Morrissey"

I am widely accused of discrediting the 9/11 truth movement but it is Gage/Jones/and the rest of their gang that does so. There is no substantive case for thermite or its variants playing a significant role in turning the WTC (mostly) to fine dust. Theirs is a distraction, a limited hangout, a fall back story for the perps who, once the 9/11official version I fairy tale lies in ruins, trot out version II: muslim terrorists used internally-placed explosives to bring down the WTC—ridiculous version II.

 

___________

 

Here is some good advice from Jack White that Dr. Fetzer posted on this forum.

 

Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 28, 2009 at 3:43pm

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:37:18 -0500 [03:37:18 PM CDT]
From: "Jack & Sue White"
To: "Morgan Reynolds"

Subject: Re: WBAI planehugging

Let me interject, if I may be so bold, something learned in researching the JFK affair since 1963.

Everyone discussing 911 seems ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that THEIR SOLUTION is the ONLY
SOLUTION. The truth is that their solution may be only a small part of the whole solution. The
real truth may be a combination of many elements. Let me draw a parallel to the JFK plot:

Some say the Mafia did it.
Some say Castro did it.
Some say the Soviets did it.
Some say the Military did it.
Some say the M-I-C did it.
Some say the Secret Service did it.
Some say the FBI did it.
Some say the CIA did it.
Some say political extremists did it.
Some say international bankers did it.
Some say Lyndon Johnson did it.
And some say LEE HARVEY OSWALD did it.

There are adherents to each of these "theories".

But the TRUTH is that ALL OF THE ABOVE had a part in the plot! Ample evidence points to
every one of these. The adherents of each theory work to discredit those who believe otherwise.
That is a genius of the plan...many trails, each sprinkled with a modicum of truth. Researchers
battle each other for 50 years about their pet theories, even though the perpetrators are long
since in their graves. The official myth lives on, despite the truth now being known.

Some of you exhibit the same HUGGING of your own pet theory, not recognizing that it may
be JUST A SMALL PORTION OF SOME MUCH BIGGER PLAN that is not yet known.

Does the term FAIL-SAFE mean anything to you? How about REDUNDANCY? How about
MISDIRECTION?

What if the actual plot had built into it many redundancies to make it fail-safe? What if it had
misdirection and false trails and smoke and mirrors and other magic tricks? What if the
destructive methods (for fail-safeness) included CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION, THERMITE,
THERMATE, NANO-THERMITE, DYNAMITE, DEW WEAPONS, ATOMIC BOMBS, etc....well,
you get the point. Or do you?

Misdirection may have included HIJACKED PLANES, HIJAKERS, FAKED FILMS, FALSE
WITNESSES, FAKED PHOTOS, PLANTED EVIDENCE...etc. etc.

Do not disparage those who disagree with you. You BOTH may be right!

I favor DEW weapons being one of the methods of destruction...but I do not discount
conventional demolition, thermate/thermite, atomic or any other secret (unknown military)
means of destruction, used singly or in combination.

To insist on a SINGLE THEORY is to follow the folly of JFK researchers.

Jack

 

 

http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3488444%3ABlogPos...



Jones has been debunked long, long ago, and has been guilty of faking evidence, manipulating photos, and stealing the original Scholar's website. He also has paid to have his papers appear "peer reviewed". His ties to Los Alamos say much about his loyalties. Thermite/mate theory of TT destruction is a non-starter, except as a red herring. Thermite/mate nano or whatever does not produce fine dust, it produces molter iron and aluminum oxide vapor, and lots of heat.

 

Best, Shallel

 

 

Jeannon,

 

"

Thoth, you seem to be glossing over this "explosives with thermate" matter."

 

actually, I guess I got sidetracked on my own hypothesis/sequence and didn't really address this.  So I'll state my opinion on it now:  I do not think Jones et al are correct that the thermate had explosive properties.  I guess to my way of thinking, the mini nukes would have been enough without the thermate exploding, and so I think it was two steps like I outlined above.  

 

"I also find it difficult to see how the melting and cutting stops without displacing the two parts that have been cut apart, in many many sites throughout the building. The two parts at each site just stay so nondisplaced, and I guess perfectly level cut,  that the entire huge building is standing upright during the 50 minutes."

 

my opinion on this is that the cutting was done, not precisely, but roughly so the steel was cut into varying sized chunks and it didn't matter much where they were displaced to.  I am only speaking of the core steel columns, not the steel frame around the outside of the building.  During this 50 minutes, the inside core columns of steel were cut into swiss cheese, but from the outside the frame still looks perfectly normal because (a) the concrete was still forming a vice grip on the rest of material, or a little weakened maybe, (b) the outer steel wheatchex and stuff were still intact so the building looked normal these "lathering" minutes when the thermate was eating the core steel columns.  

 

"The only thing that looked like “explosions” to me was those nukes going off and those big chunks of material flying out the sides of the building, though I must confess that I never really conceptualized the bigness of those “sticks” flying out of the building because they looked rather small in proportion to the building which was rapidly fading from sight because of the clouds. 
But again this thread and Dr. Hightower’s paper want to zero in on Dr. Jones’ research and findings"

 

correct, me too, which is why I think Jones is wrong.  See he has an "axe to grind":  his reputation is based on thermite and he refuses to allow the possibility of mini nukes, which were also used.  To "save face" I believe he is scrambling to make his thermite explosive, which is really isn't.

 

I've seen research in JFK, RFK, 911, etc. where people get stuck in pet theories and then after bend all evidence to fit the pet theory instead of the other way around, because human ego gets stuck up.  

Last two postings very good.  

I have spoken to the issue of "explosive thermite/thermate" many times during my interviews and on my posters. I say 2 things were involved in taking down the Twin Towers:

1. Thermate to cut the core collums, completely at levels above the alleged crash sites, but only partially below the crash sites to weaken them.

2 Then either high explosives or mini-nukes took out the weakened columns and pulverized the concrete.

 

One can predetermine how much Thermate is needed to cut a steel column completely through or to cut is partilly to where it is weakened but can still support in its weakened state. In its weakened state, high explosives should be able to do the job, but the mini nukes should be able to do it better.

 

The most apparant places the mini nukes were used were WTC-6,5,4,3, where the large multi-holed hole were, just like the Murrah building and the Pentagon to some extent. I suspect the Pentagon was at least in part taken out by mini nukes and perhaps a missile for the holes. I am not yet conclusive on the Pentagon as I have not studies it in depth, only qualitatively from its appearance being similar to the Murrah building and the WTC-6........

All things are subject to change when new evidence appears or new and good ideas are presented that allow a better interpretation of the available data.

My hypotheses are not yet locked in stone, but seem far superior to Dr. Judy Wood's circus.

Her hypotheses could appear to be acceptable if no other interpretation was available to explain all, I mean everything, in great simple detail and thermate and high explosives or mini nukes is able to do, easily, simply, logically, and scientifically...amen for now.

I do not think the Thermate/Thermite was explosive as when it reacted to cut the steel the explosions would have occured not allowing time to do the cutting. I think the explosives were heat sheilded and set off independently of the thermate.

 

I is possible to make thermate explosive by mixing into the formula the explosive, but it would immediately explode upon detonation with not time to cut, unless the cutting and explosion occurred at the same time, which does not make sense to me and defeats the cutting purpose of thermate.

Jones may be mistaken about explosive thermate. I have always said that the explosive nature defeats the cutting nature of thermate.

When the explosions occurred, the ongoing thermate cutting reactions were blown apart and out over Manhatten to do all of its destructive anomalous effects. That thermate was actively reacting but not completed but was completed when it hit cars, etc, or just when the reactants were all used up producing aluminum oxide  and iron spheres and there was some unreacted thermate as a result of the explosions blowing the thermate apart into micro pieces.

That is the present state of my interpretations until something comes along that show that it happened differently.

Please review my poster and interviews to see where I stand on all of this.

I do all of my research independently applying my scientific background, viewing photos, videos, reading papers, reading blogs, etc. also reading the first responders interviews of what they saw and did.

I am finding lots and lots of new information to support my hypothesis and expect top find a lot more from pulling off still frames from videos on the internet, where those frames are not available as still photos anywhere on the internet...

 

Chuck Boldwyn

Jeannon Kralj said:

I see that this thread has drifted over to the mini-nukes focus again.  That's OK but the thread is really about rebutting Dr. Jones and company, and concomittanly rebutting the "thermite" hypothesis.  Remember thermite has been communicated by Jones and company to us as the agent that created the fine dust.  I think if Chuck is going to maintain thermite as an indespensable ingredient in his scheme, Chuck had better speak to us about its "explosiveness" that is so often spoken of by the originator of the thermite idea, and speak to us also about thermite's  ability make all the dust or fine particles.  It now seems that we are being baited and switched to the mini-nukes making the dust....

 

 

 

Here is a classic tidbit that exists on this forum...

 

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:21:47 -0500 [11:21:47 AM CDT]
From: "Morgan Reynolds"
To: "jfetzer@d.umn.edu" , "Michael Morrissey"

I am widely accused of discrediting the 9/11 truth movement but it is Gage/Jones/and the rest of their gang that does so. There is no substantive case for thermite or its variants playing a significant role in turning the WTC (mostly) to fine dust. Theirs is a distraction, a limited hangout, a fall back story for the perps who, once the 9/11official version I fairy tale lies in ruins, trot out version II: muslim terrorists used internally-placed explosives to bring down the WTC—ridiculous version II.

 

___________

 

Here is some good advice from Jack White that Dr. Fetzer posted on this forum.

 

Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 28, 2009 at 3:43pm

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:37:18 -0500 [03:37:18 PM CDT]
From: "Jack & Sue White"
To: "Morgan Reynolds"

Subject: Re: WBAI planehugging

Let me interject, if I may be so bold, something learned in researching the JFK affair since 1963.

Everyone discussing 911 seems ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that THEIR SOLUTION is the ONLY
SOLUTION. The truth is that their solution may be only a small part of the whole solution. The
real truth may be a combination of many elements. Let me draw a parallel to the JFK plot:

Some say the Mafia did it.
Some say Castro did it.
Some say the Soviets did it.
Some say the Military did it.
Some say the M-I-C did it.
Some say the Secret Service did it.
Some say the FBI did it.
Some say the CIA did it.
Some say political extremists did it.
Some say international bankers did it.
Some say Lyndon Johnson did it.
And some say LEE HARVEY OSWALD did it.

There are adherents to each of these "theories".

But the TRUTH is that ALL OF THE ABOVE had a part in the plot! Ample evidence points to
every one of these. The adherents of each theory work to discredit those who believe otherwise.
That is a genius of the plan...many trails, each sprinkled with a modicum of truth. Researchers
battle each other for 50 years about their pet theories, even though the perpetrators are long
since in their graves. The official myth lives on, despite the truth now being known.

Some of you exhibit the same HUGGING of your own pet theory, not recognizing that it may
be JUST A SMALL PORTION OF SOME MUCH BIGGER PLAN that is not yet known.

Does the term FAIL-SAFE mean anything to you? How about REDUNDANCY? How about
MISDIRECTION?

What if the actual plot had built into it many redundancies to make it fail-safe? What if it had
misdirection and false trails and smoke and mirrors and other magic tricks? What if the
destructive methods (for fail-safeness) included CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION, THERMITE,
THERMATE, NANO-THERMITE, DYNAMITE, DEW WEAPONS, ATOMIC BOMBS, etc....well,
you get the point. Or do you?

Misdirection may have included HIJACKED PLANES, HIJAKERS, FAKED FILMS, FALSE
WITNESSES, FAKED PHOTOS, PLANTED EVIDENCE...etc. etc.

Do not disparage those who disagree with you. You BOTH may be right!

I favor DEW weapons being one of the methods of destruction...but I do not discount
conventional demolition, thermate/thermite, atomic or any other secret (unknown military)
means of destruction, used singly or in combination.

To insist on a SINGLE THEORY is to follow the folly of JFK researchers.

Jack

 

 

http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3488444%3ABlogPos...



Thanks, Chuck.  Very helpful.  I have listened to 4 or 5 of your shows and taken notes but know I have missed some of what you said early on.   So I take it that at least for now, you do not subscribe to the idea that thermite or nanothermite made into an explosive form, even if that were possible, is not what did the cutting, and that it was only the "nonexplosive" form of thermite that was used, or even needed, to do the cutting.

 

I guess I just assumed (I know,  ass - you - me) that you were in line with ALL of Dr. Jones' ideas about nanothermite being able to have explosive properties.

 

I think it would be helpful if somehow you could re-iterate your ideas that you just stated in your posting either on the radio show or in any current writings you do, in addition to here.  It helps people stay on board with your theories and not discount them.

 

That whole idea of thermite being tightly combined with explosives got me muddled and I could not see how the explosions would not interfere with the precise cutting that was called for.

These are the statements that have been made recently on this topic that I generally agree with:

 

“I also find it difficult to see how the melting and cutting stops without displacing the two parts that have been cut apart, in many many sites throughout the building." Jeannon, June 30, 2011

 

“Thermite/mate nano or whatever does not produce fine dust, it produces molter iron and aluminum oxide vapor, and lots of heat.”  Shallel, Jun 30, 2011

 

“I do not think Jones et al are correct that the thermate has explosive properties.”  Toth II, Jun 30, 2011

 

“It is possible to make thermate explosive by mixing into the formula the explosive , but it would immediately explode upon detonation without time to cut, unless the cutting and explosion occurred at the same time, which does not make sense to me and defeats the cutting purpose of thermate.

Jones may be mistaken about explosive thermate. I have always said that the explosive nature defeats the cutting nature of thermate.” Chuck Boldwyn, June 31, 2011

 

Here is a current summary of my Thoughts as they have Evolved:

 

It appears that Hightower's challenge has yet to be met.

 

Second, by converting Thermite to Nano-thermite it can be made to react more rapidly however, it does not make Nanothermite an explosive capable of doing the work of moving large heavy objects. That requires either a very potent conventional (RDX, HMX for example) or nonconventional (fission, fission/fusion, fusion only, neutron for example) explosion. Therefore, the exploding steel beams which were ejected so violently up and out from the Twin Towers should either be the result of extremely powerful conventional or nonconventional explosives or even both.

 

Third, the exceedingly fine nano-sized dust particulate matter that was created is very unusual and not normally associated with conventional explosives no matter how powerful especially in such enormous quantities. Therefore, in order to explain it, some kind of nuclear explosion(s) or other kind of classified technology such as DEW must be strongly considered (for other reasons DEW is much less likely however particularly because solid evidence establishes that molten steel was present at GZ for over 3 months).

 

Fourth, it is not clear at present whether nuclear explosions alone could have destroyed the Twin Towers or whether thermite/nano-thermite was required as well in order to provide massive cutting of steel columns in preparation for the presumed nuclear explosions. It seems obvious that the nuclear explosions could readily have converted all of the concrete to dust given the nature of concrete’s inelasticity.  Whether nuclear explosions in the size postulated could have caused disruption of the steel beams as well including fracturing them into smaller portions without having first been cut with thermite/nanothermite or some other cutting agent is still open to question in my view and must be further investigated.

 

Occam’s razor holds that we must not multiply entities unnecessarily. If nuclear explosions could perform all of the work known to have been accomplished in the destruction of the Twin Towers then other powerful objective evidence is required in order to justify claiming that thermite/nano-thermite was used.  In that regard, we must be completely satisfied that a proper chain of custody was insured for the material that Herrit et. al tested and which they have identified as nano-thermite. If the chain of custody for the material in question was not properly maintained, then we lack the forensic evidence required to state that nano-thermite was present (that does not mean it was not used, it would mean that we could not prove it based upon the available evidence at this point).

 

Such however is not the case with the solid evidence found by the USGS dust analysis on September 17-18 which showed that fission decay products of Uranium 235 were in great abundance including barium, strontium, lead and many other elements known to be associated with the decay of Uranium 235. The finding in other studies that tritium was present strongly suggests that a fusion reaction occurred as well although I have seen it argued that tritium can be produced by certain types of nuclear fission reactions also. This point must be further checked with a physicist who has practical knowledge of/experience with nuclear explosive technology.

 

Whether thermite/nano-thermite was used is not actually as important as the fact that some kind of nuclear explosion(s) appear to have occurred whether from subterranean nuclear reactors that were allowed to go critical as William Tahil alleges or because multiple mini or micro nukes were utilized which the Anonymous Physicist, Dr. Deagle, Dr. Ed Ward and others posit occurred.  The other option of course is that a fusion type explosion(s) was responsible for the destruction the way the Finnish Military Expert has alleged or some combination of all of these. In some respects the thermite/nanothermite issue may be a red herring of sorts meant to minimize research into the nuclear or the DEW hypotheses. 

 

The most important conclusion vis a vis our discusion of this topic is that nanothermite is not a powerful explosive and could not alone have caused the Twin Towers concrete to become pulverized into nano-sized dust particulate matter and could not have alone caused the violent ejection of steel beams up an out from each Twin Tower structure. An additional finding not discussed in detail on this post topic is that nanothermite could not have caused the 3 plus month presence of molten steel which was documented in the footprint of each Twin Tower.

 

 

Thank you, Dr. Hubert.  Nice summary and overview.  Will have to think about your comments before commenting in full.

 

Offhand, the paragraph that raised several points of needing of further discussion was...

 

"

Third, the exceedingly fine nano-sized dust particulate matter that was created is very unusual and not normally associated with conventional explosives no matter how powerful especially in such enormous quantities. Therefore, in order to explain it, some kind of nuclear explosion(s) or other kind of classified technology such as DEW must be strongly considered (for other reasons DEW is much less likely however particularly because solid evidence establishes that molten steel was present at GZ for over 3 months)."

 

Request of Chuck Boldwyn:

 

Chuck, would you please copy and paste into one posting, preferably in this thread, from your slides, the 43 (or 41?) main points discussed by Dr. Wood in her book, in the same order as given in the book.  I assume you can do this WITHIN copyright laws.  I know your slide text of these points has some typos and I can fix those.  (I tried put was could not figure out how to get that text into Word text.

 

I would like to be able to cut and past just that list of points into a personal MS Word file and come up with Dr. Wood's strongest points left after the Boldwyn steamroller has run its course.

 

 

To all interested in the 43 items to be answered, I had a Word Document already prepared, so I copied and pasted it here for your convenience.

 

WTC Evidence That Must Be Explained

(from Dr. Judy Wood’s Book: Where Did The Towers Go?

Evidence of Free-Energy Technology on 9/11)

 

Fact 1:

Although Hurricane Erin was located just off Long Island throughout the day of 9/11/01, both the approach in days before and the presence of the storm on that day went almost totally unreported. Hurricane Erin was omitted on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean where she stood was covered by the map. Astronauts gazing down said they could see the drifting plume from the destruction of WTC-1 and WTC-2 but made no mention of the highly visible Erin.

Why?

Fact 2:

Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were toasted in strange ways during the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Why and How?

Fact 3:

During destruction, there appeared alongside the buildings curios cork-screw trails, called in this book Silly strings.

Why?

Fact 4:

During the demise of each tower, large enough volumes of dust made of nano-sized particles went up, enough to block out 100% of sunlight in some areas. This nano-sized particulate dust in volume enough to achieve sun-light-blocking density constituted the remains of the greatest part of the destroyed buildings’ material substance.

What Caused This Dust To Form?

 

Fact 5:

During the destruction, there was an absence of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. Additionally, there was scant evidence of burned bodies, although in one case a man was described as “crisped” even while his jacket remained uncrisped, indicating an ‘inside-out” combustion not possible with conventional fire.

What Caused These Phenomena?

Fact 6:

Evidence that the WTC dust continued to break down and become finer and finer long after 9/11 itself came through the observable presence of Fuzzballs.

What Causes This phenomenon?

Fact 7:

First responders on 9/11 testified as to toasted cars, spontaneous “fires” (including the flaming heavy coat of a running medic, who survived), the instant disappearance of people, a plane turning into a fireball in mid-air, electrical power cut off moments before WTC-2 destruction, and the sound of explosions.

What Caused These Phenomena?

Fact 8:

For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC-4 stood have continued to fume.

Why?

Fact 9:

Hazy clouds, called Fuzzyblobs in this book, appeared in the vicinity of material undergoing destruction.

Why?

 

 

Fact 10:

Magnetometer readings from six stations in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the Earth’s magnetic field as each of the major destructive events unfolded at the WTC on 9/11.

Why?

Fact 11:

Manu cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex were flipped upside down. They couldn’t have been flipped by hurricane-force winds, since they stood adjacent to trees with full foliage, not stripped by high wind.

Why?

Fact 12:

More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it.

Why?

Fact 13:

Most of the destroyed towers underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.

What Force Caused This “Dustification”?

Fact 14:

Near-instant rusting of affected steel provided evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation.

Why?

Fact 15:

Of the estimated 3.000 toilets in WTC-1 and WTC-2, not one survived, nor was ny recognizable portion of one whatsoever found.

Why?

 

Fact 16:

Only one piece of office equipment in the entire WTC complex, a filing cabinet with folder dividers, survived.

Why?

Fact 17:

Only the north wing of WTC-4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body, which virtually disappeared.

Fact

Fact 18:

Rail lines, tunnels and most of the rail cars at levels under the WTC complex had only light damage, in if any.

Why?

Fact 19:

Cylindrical holes were cut into the vertical faces of buildings 4,5 and 6. They were cut also into Liberty Street in front of Bankers Trust and into Vesey Street in front of WTC-6. In addition, a cylindrical arc was cut into the façade of Bankers Trust.

Why and How?

Fact 20:

Scott-Packs---portable air-tanks for firemen---frequently exploded for no visible reason. Entire fire trucks themselves that were parked near the WTC exploded.

Why?

Fact 21:

Sheets of plain office paper were omnipresent throughout lower Manhattan after each tower’s destruction. This paper, however, remained unburned, even though it was often immediately adjacent to flaming cars or to steel beams glowing red, yellow, and even white.

Why?

Fact 22:

Some steel beams and pieces of glass at and near GZ had what this book calls a Swiss-Cheese appearance.

Why?

Fact 23:

Steel columns from the towers were curled around vertical axes like rolled-up carpets. Steel columns of this kind, however, when they buckle from being overloaded, would be bent around the horizontal, not the vertical, axis.

Why?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fact 24:

The “collapse” of the towers took place with remarkably little damage to neighboring buildings. The only seriously damaged or entirely destroyed buildings, in fact, were those with the WTC prefix, only those, that is, that were a part of the WTC complex.

Why?

Fact 25:

The destruction of WTC-7 in late afternoon on 9/11 was whisper quiet. The seismic signal during its disappearance was not significantly greater than background noise.

Why?

Fact 26:

The facades of WFC-1 and WFC-2 showed no apparent structural damage from the destruction of WTC-1 and WTC-2. However, the decorative marble façade around the entry to the buildings was completely missing, entirely gone.

Why? From What Force?

 

 

Fact 27:

In the dirt pile, the Fuming was unusual for its quality of immediately decreasing when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat, where an initial steam-up is the response to watering.

Why?

Fact 28:

The majority of the towers (WTC-1, WTC-2, WTC-3, WTC-7) did not remain as rigid bodies as they “fell”.

Why?

Fact 29:

The method of destruction in the case of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings, whereas terrorists would have been expected to maximize damage, including that of infrastructure.

Fact 30:                                                                                                                           The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Fact 31:                                                                                                                                        The seismic impact was minimal during the destructions of WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7, and far too small to correspond with a conventional “collapse” as based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.

Fact 32:                                                                                                                             The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not from the bottom up

Fact 33:                                                                                                                                 The Twin Towers were destroyed in a shorter time than can be explained by physics as a “collapse” even at free-fall speed.

Fact 34:                                                                                                                                   The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.

Fact 35:                                                                                                                       The upper 90 percent, of the inside of WTC-7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.

Fact 36:                                                                                                                            The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Brothers’ Road Runner and friends.

Fact 37:                                                                                                             The WTC-1 and WTC-2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.

Fact 38:                                                                                                             The WTC-7 rubble pile was too small to account for the total mass of the building, and much of it consisted of mud.

Fact 39:                                                                                                         Truckloads of dirt were hauled both into and out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day.

Fact 40:                                                                                                           What this book calls lather, thick clouds of dust and fumes, emanated from some faces of building before destruction, as if large volumes of the buildings’ mass was dissolving into the air. Lather poured from WTC-7 for several hours before its destruction.                                                                                    Why?

Fact 41:

What this book calls weird fire appeared frequently on 9/11. This “fire” flamed but gave no evidence of providing heat, not even enough to burn nearby sheets of paper.

Why?

Fact 42:

Glass windows on nearby building received circular and other odd-shaped holes without the entire panes breaking.

Why?

 

 

 

Fact 43:

Changes and alterations in materials on 9/11 were similar or even identical in a great many ways to the changes and alterations in materials caused by The Hutchison Effect. The Hutchison Effect is known to result in material-altering phenomena of the kinds we have listed here.

END

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you very much, Chuck.

 

If I get one of those "round tuits" I may reference the link to the show you dealt with an item next to the item and post a list with those references.

To All:

This is the hypothesis I proposed on Jim Fetzer's show almost 2 years ago and it has not been logically debunked as of yet. I have repeated its analysis on several shows and still hold the possibility as valid and even highly likely since no one else has shown differently, conclusively.

The only other possibility would be long lasting aftereffects of nuclear products, which no one has shown to be liky the case with examples of literature proof.

I am still open for other possibilities and still researching explosives, all types...

 

Chuck Boldwyn

Dr. J. P. Hubert said:

These are the statements that have been made recently on this topic that I generally agree with:

 

“I also find it difficult to see how the melting and cutting stops without displacing the two parts that have been cut apart, in many many sites throughout the building." Jeannon, June 30, 2011

 

“Thermite/mate nano or whatever does not produce fine dust, it produces molter iron and aluminum oxide vapor, and lots of heat.”  Shallel, Jun 30, 2011

 

“I do not think Jones et al are correct that the thermate has explosive properties.”  Toth II, Jun 30, 2011

 

“It is possible to make thermate explosive by mixing into the formula the explosive , but it would immediately explode upon detonation without time to cut, unless the cutting and explosion occurred at the same time, which does not make sense to me and defeats the cutting purpose of thermate.

Jones may be mistaken about explosive thermate. I have always said that the explosive nature defeats the cutting nature of thermate.” Chuck Boldwyn, June 31, 2011

 

Here is a current summary of my Thoughts as they have Evolved:

 

It appears that Hightower's challenge has yet to be met.

 

Second, by converting Thermite to Nano-thermite it can be made to react more rapidly however, it does not make Nanothermite an explosive capable of doing the work of moving large heavy objects. That requires either a very potent conventional (RDX, HMX for example) or nonconventional (fission, fission/fusion, fusion only, neutron for example) explosion. Therefore, the exploding steel beams which were ejected so violently up and out from the Twin Towers should either be the result of extremely powerful conventional or nonconventional explosives or even both.

 

Third, the exceedingly fine nano-sized dust particulate matter that was created is very unusual and not normally associated with conventional explosives no matter how powerful especially in such enormous quantities. Therefore, in order to explain it, some kind of nuclear explosion(s) or other kind of classified technology such as DEW must be strongly considered (for other reasons DEW is much less likely however particularly because solid evidence establishes that molten steel was present at GZ for over 3 months).

 

Fourth, it is not clear at present whether nuclear explosions alone could have destroyed the Twin Towers or whether thermite/nano-thermite was required as well in order to provide massive cutting of steel columns in preparation for the presumed nuclear explosions. It seems obvious that the nuclear explosions could readily have converted all of the concrete to dust given the nature of concrete’s inelasticity.  Whether nuclear explosions in the size postulated could have caused disruption of the steel beams as well including fracturing them into smaller portions without having first been cut with thermite/nanothermite or some other cutting agent is still open to question in my view and must be further investigated.

 

Occam’s razor holds that we must not multiply entities unnecessarily. If nuclear explosions could perform all of the work known to have been accomplished in the destruction of the Twin Towers then other powerful objective evidence is required in order to justify claiming that thermite/nano-thermite was used.  In that regard, we must be completely satisfied that a proper chain of custody was insured for the material that Herrit et. al tested and which they have identified as nano-thermite. If the chain of custody for the material in question was not properly maintained, then we lack the forensic evidence required to state that nano-thermite was present (that does not mean it was not used, it would mean that we could not prove it based upon the available evidence at this point).

 

Such however is not the case with the solid evidence found by the USGS dust analysis on September 17-18 which showed that fission decay products of Uranium 235 were in great abundance including barium, strontium, lead and many other elements known to be associated with the decay of Uranium 235. The finding in other studies that tritium was present strongly suggests that a fusion reaction occurred as well although I have seen it argued that tritium can be produced by certain types of nuclear fission reactions also. This point must be further checked with a physicist who has practical knowledge of/experience with nuclear explosive technology.

 

Whether thermite/nano-thermite was used is not actually as important as the fact that some kind of nuclear explosion(s) appear to have occurred whether from subterranean nuclear reactors that were allowed to go critical as William Tahil alleges or because multiple mini or micro nukes were utilized which the Anonymous Physicist, Dr. Deagle, Dr. Ed Ward and others posit occurred.  The other option of course is that a fusion type explosion(s) was responsible for the destruction the way the Finnish Military Expert has alleged or some combination of all of these. In some respects the thermite/nanothermite issue may be a red herring of sorts meant to minimize research into the nuclear or the DEW hypotheses. 

 

The most important conclusion vis a vis our discusion of this topic is that nanothermite is not a powerful explosive and could not alone have caused the Twin Towers concrete to become pulverized into nano-sized dust particulate matter and could not have alone caused the violent ejection of steel beams up an out from each Twin Tower structure. An additional finding not discussed in detail on this post topic is that nanothermite could not have caused the 3 plus month presence of molten steel which was documented in the footprint of each Twin Tower.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2021   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service