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: 3059

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I like.  Makes things simple, easy to understand.

 

I would add Dr. Hubert as a good guy too.

 

And of course Thoth and Jeannon as well.

I truly hope Mr. Hightower will join in this discussion.

 

Jeannon, as far as your following comments are concerned:

 

"Dr. Hubert,

  To carry on where we had previously left on in this thread's topic.  You see now, I am sure, that Dr. Jones never claims that "nano thermite" is the only "explosive" that could have been used in the Towers' destruction."

 

I will try to do a little searching on that point myself as I am now more curious about it in light of your comments.

 

 

  "However, Dr. Jones has claimed that "nano thermite", in certain of its forms, does have substantial explosive properties, an idea that Mr. Hightower has, in my opinion, totally blown out of the water.  Knowing this now, I am now understanding that your idea of a more comprehensive dust study no longer presents itself as a viable option, and please correct me if I am wrong."

 

It seems Chuck still believes that nanothermite was involved in some way in the destruction of the Twin Towers, even though he does apparently believe that nuclear explosions were utilized as well. There may be other members who still believe that nanothermite was used in some capacity for example, as only an incendiary cutting agent on the steal beams in a non-explosive capacity.

 

My concerns have revolved around the question of whether nanothermite was present at all not simply whether it is or is not an explosive agent which I agree Mr. Hightower and others have argued effectively against.

 

One way to settle whether nanothermite was present at the WTC, would be to test known dust samples that were tested previously but not for nanothermite, this time for the presence of nanothermite utilizing the same protocol as the Jones/Harrit study if they were preserved properly and are still available. It may be that no nanothermite would be detected.

 

I would like Mr. Hightower to respond if possible before I proceed further.

If the steel cutting thermate or nanothermate was not used at all, which is, IMO, most highly improbable, then all of my logical debunking of Judy Wood's 43 points to be explained go down the tubes, which again I say the "no thermate" thought would be very unlikely, very, very unlikely

The mixing of RDX or HMX or TNT or ONC, etc with Thermate would seem to defeat the purpose of Thermate to cut the steel.

Maybe pure nanothermate was to do the cutting and some high explosive loded thermate could explain the events, 2 forms of thermate, one without high explosives to do pure cutting and one to do the explosions. But again it would not make sense and defeat the purpose of the Thermate.

For me, the best scenario is:

1. pure thermate to do the cutting of the core columns and the exterial columns at the 96th floor for WTC-1 and the 80th floor for WTC-2.

 

2 Finish it all off with explosive mini nukes, like the mini neutron bombs.

3. Thermate had to be used to cut the core columns and the perimeter at the points just mentioned to make the top blocks appear to fall and gravity collapse the lower most, most massive blocks.

If you dismiss thermate, you will need something else to take its place as a strictly cutting incendiary.

It make no sense at all to dismiss some form of Thermate, none at all...

 

The support for thermate is massive in that all points in question, all of the Judy Wood anomalies are explained with them and none are explained without them, except with the DEWs and the Hutchison Field Effects, which is a most far out groping for an explanation claim.

 

Thermate and nukes makes the most, moster, mostest sense that this time, IMO...

 

Chuck

 

 

I have request Dr. Steven Jones, per phone message, to send me one or two sample of the Thermate-laden dust to be analyzed by me, hopefully with the assistance of some Chemistry Professors at the 2 big universities near me: The University of Miami and Florida International University.

So far, Dr. Jones has not called me to reply, so I will try again next week in case there was a communication problem.

I will report on all of the results of our communication, positive or negative, and then if I do get the sample(s), I will report on the progress. I plan to video all events, if possible, especially the separation of the iron or steel or thermate particles that can be saparated with a magnet.

My rich biology friend has a very powerful microscope with a camera that he will willing allow me to use for photos.

All will depend upon if Steven Jones will allow me to do this proposed independent research using the same samples he used to promote his "blockbuster" nano-thermate paper that is being supressed by the MSM.

Here’s the problem from my point of view:

 

Dr. Steven Jones appears to have been less than candid with respect to what so-called nanothermite or superthermite is capable of doing that is, stating in writing on multiple occasions that nanothermite is an explosive which he clearly did in his The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 paper.  Hightower and others have shown that nanothermite is not an explosive agent unless combined with an explosive agent, a point which Jones et. al should have made but didn’t—a serious breach in ethics.  

 

Moreover, he and his research group have failed to be forthright about the serious limitations their analysis of the WTC dust samples faced due to lack of consistent standards being observed in the process of sample collection, preservation and prompt empirical testing. The Jones/Harrit study was performed on dust samples of questionable provenance and many years after the event itself. There is no way of knowing what may have happened to the samples in the interim.  Jones et. al should have candidly stressed this fact and insisted upon obtaining dust samples from known sources collected by for example the USGS if those are still preserved properly and available. These samples have been previously subjected to extensive testing which showed that they contained extremely high levels of barium and strontium a known signature for nuclear decay in the fission of uranium 235. These samples were not tested for thermite/nanothermite however. If they are still available, they should be tested for thermite/nanothermite by an independent team utilizing the exact same protocol as the Jones et. al. research group.

 

Further testing of the Jones samples is unlikely to yield useful data. If positive, we still have the provenance problem, if negative; we need to obtain separate samples before being able to conclude that no evidence of thermite/nanothermite was present at GZ since the issue was raised by Jones et. al and could conceivably be true despite the severe limitations of their materials and methods portion of their experimental design with respect to dust samples. In other words, Jones et. al may have fortuitously stumbled upon the fact of nanothermite being used at the WTC despite the obvious limitations of their study.

 

From the perspective of a consideration of Dr. Judy Wood’s 43 points which she alleges proves the use of DFEW technology and not any other including nuclear, thermite/nanothermite etc. we have the Anonymous Physicist who has written that all of her 43 points can be explained by nuclear explosions and related EMP effects.  See this for example http://wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com/2007/08/towards-end-of-one-91...

 

Chuck on the other hand says that “If the steel cutting thermate or nanothermate was not used at all, which is, IMO, most highly improbable, then all of my logical debunking of Judy Wood's 43 points to be explained go down the tubes…”  

 

Therefore, 3 different opinions exist for how we are to explain Dr. Wood’s 43 points which she alleges are “FACTS.” The Anonoymous Physicist posits a nuclear cause, Dr. Wood postulates DFEW and Chuck claims thermate/nanothermate is the answer.

 

I favor a nuclear mechanism as the primary cause of the Twin Towers destruction given what is currently available in the public domain as it appears to explain more of the documented evidence in isolation without the need to add other possible agents.  I can not rule out that other substances may have assisted the process which certainly could include RDX, HMX, Thermite/nanothermite, and or other controlled demolition agents.

 

One of the most difficult findings to explain it seems to me is the nearly 5 month long extremely elevated temperatures that were present in the basement levels of the footprint of each Twin Tower.  Dr. Wood agrees that her theory is incompatible with this finding and doubts it was true. She also wrote in her book that there was no evidence of nuclear explosions which is false according to the USGS dust study, see page 121. Thermite and nanothermite do not explain the prolonged subterranean heat at GZ. It is extremely difficult not to conclude that a "China Syndrome" occured there for up to 5 months after the event until all of the radioactive debris was removed. The trucking in an out of large amounts of dirt, constant washing down with water both support this explanation. The markedly elevated incidence of atypical cancers in young emergency responders does as well.

 

One issue that Shallel Octavia has raised does bother me however vis a vis the nuclear mechanism and that is why if nuclear explosions occured, there was no blinding light and reports of witnesses becoming blind. Perhaps someone with expertise in nuclear bomb technology could answer whether third or fourth generation versions can produce  the effects seen.

 

Unfortunately, none of the above 3 mechanisms appear capable of explaining all of the documented effects unless used in combination, something that while improbable is not theoretically impossible  if certain classified weapons and technology exist that is not in the public domain.

 

have been less than candid

 

a serious breach in ethics

 

have failed to be forthright

 

Thank you for modeling for us caritas, that is, the virtue of charity.  I am afraid as I see Dr. Jones and his minions and review their work, I am moving in the wrong direction in expressing these things charitably.

 

I wanted to make a note..

 

Mr. Hightowers article was originally posted at the Serendipity website...

 

www.serendipity.li/wot/how_can_nanothermite_be_explosive.htm

 

but that site seems to be down now, perhaps only temporarily, so the full essay can be viewed here, Dr. Fetzer's blog, and a few other places on the web by searching on essay title.

 

________

 

I was searching around for a definition of "nano-thermite" yesterday in trying to  further respond in this thread here.

 

I came upon two interesting articles in Scott Creighton's (his real name) blog.  Screen name  "Willyloman"

 

1.

 

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/steven-jones-is-literall...

 

Steven Jones is Literally Selling His “Nanothermite” Story

Posted on August 5, 2009 by willyloman

 

2.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/niels-harrit-is-a-weasel...

 

Continued in Part 2 of posting below...

Continued Here -- Part 2 of my posting

 

____

In addition to Scott's two articles above,  here are a few more ...

willyloman, on June 12, 2011 at 11:49 am said:

If you are really interested in understanding what I think happened, here are a few articles I wrote:

9/11 Shock Opera… Act 4 – Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Final...

Currently Reworking Demolition Theory Artwork – Video in the Making

Det Cord and Concrete Slab

Sneak Peak: Revised Demolition Theory Hypothesis

The 23,000 Missing Trusses of 9/11

Proposed Testing Procedure for High Explosive Residues in Ground Ze...

9/11 Truth Red Herring: Neoliberal BYU Has Financed, Staffed, and P...

Why Doesn’t Dr. Jones Test for Explosive Residues in that Dust?

and there is another one that goes to the same thing you said about a developing resurgence in the Truth movement. I think the recent crap going which was intended to drive that final nail in the coffin of the movement may have actually had the exact opposite effect.

Truth and Consequences: A Watershed Moment for Rebuilding a Movement

Continue Here -- Part 3 of my posting...

 

Mr. Hightower stated...

"

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."



and





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.



__

So, Dr. Jones and Dr. Herrit and other researchers on this study DO NOT EVER DEFINE "Nano-thermite."

From what I have read, there are differnet substances that can be generally classified as "nano-thermites."  No matter how "nano" you make the substance, it will never become a "high explosive nano-thermite."

Anyone who has watched Dr. Steven Jones on videos will know what I am referring to here, but he generally waves his hands about in a grand way.  He usually has a chalk board or some elaborate charts and graphs behind him.  Can we say "showtime?"

This study of Dr. Jones is just more hand waving, more showtime.  I don't care how many Ph.D.s a person has or in what "hard science" disciplines, this study is NOT a legitimate scholarly peer-reviewed research study.

I believe Dr. Jones and Mr. Gage and Mr. Legge and Mr. Ryan and all of their acolytes know exactly what they are promoting and participating in,

AND IT IS NOT A PRETTY PICTURE.





 

 

 

 

 

______________

Jeannon Kralj said:

Continued Here -- Part 2 of my posting

 

____

In addition to Scott's two articles above,  here are a few more ...

willyloman, on June 12, 2011 at 11:49 am said:

If you are really interested in understanding what I think happened, here are a few articles I wrote:

9/11 Shock Opera… Act 4 – Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Final...

Currently Reworking Demolition Theory Artwork – Video in the Making

Det Cord and Concrete Slab

Sneak Peak: Revised Demolition Theory Hypothesis

The 23,000 Missing Trusses of 9/11

Proposed Testing Procedure for High Explosive Residues in Ground Ze...

9/11 Truth Red Herring: Neoliberal BYU Has Financed, Staffed, and P...

Why Doesn’t Dr. Jones Test for Explosive Residues in that Dust?

and there is another one that goes to the same thing you said about a developing resurgence in the Truth movement. I think the recent crap going which was intended to drive that final nail in the coffin of the movement may have actually had the exact opposite effect.

Truth and Consequences: A Watershed Moment for Rebuilding a Movement

Chuck, meet Tubes, Tubes, meet Chuck.

Your work contradicts itself. These temperatures you present are inconsistent with the observed evidence.

So is the idea that thermite/mate could affect the toasted cars, but not people or paper, and be hot enough to cause these effects while being cool enough not to glow.

 



Chuck Boldwyn said:

If the steel cutting thermate or nanothermate was not used at all, which is, IMO, most highly improbable, then all of my logical debunking of Judy Wood's 43 points to be explained go down the tubes, which again I say the "no thermate" thought would be very unlikely, very, very unlikely

The mixing of RDX or HMX or TNT or ONC, etc with Thermate would seem to defeat the purpose of Thermate to cut the steel.

Maybe pure nanothermate was to do the cutting and some high explosive loded thermate could explain the events, 2 forms of thermate, one without high explosives to do pure cutting and one to do the explosions. But again it would not make sense and defeat the purpose of the Thermate.

For me, the best scenario is:

1. pure thermate to do the cutting of the core columns and the exterial columns at the 96th floor for WTC-1 and the 80th floor for WTC-2.

 

2 Finish it all off with explosive mini nukes, like the mini neutron bombs.

3. Thermate had to be used to cut the core columns and the perimeter at the points just mentioned to make the top blocks appear to fall and gravity collapse the lower most, most massive blocks.

If you dismiss thermate, you will need something else to take its place as a strictly cutting incendiary.

It make no sense at all to dismiss some form of Thermate, none at all...

 

The support for thermate is massive in that all points in question, all of the Judy Wood anomalies are explained with them and none are explained without them, except with the DEWs and the Hutchison Field Effects, which is a most far out groping for an explanation claim.

 

Thermate and nukes makes the most, moster, mostest sense that this time, IMO...

 

Chuck

 

 

This is my first post to the group.  I have read all of the above material, but I have not yet explored this whole site.  So it will probably take me awhile to get familiar with how all of this works.

I attended the Conspiracy Con conference in Santa Clara, CA, near where I live, on June 4-5, and I had a table where I was passing out copies of my paper as well as a handout made especially for the conference, which announced the seeking of Architects & Engineers for Nanothermite Truth.  I am going to attempt to upload that file when I enter this reply

Subsequently I created a Facebook group called Architects & Engineers for Nanothermite Truth, and I have been using it to get the word out about The Nanothermite Challenge, and that the deadline is this Monday June 20.

I think I will stop at this point, and give more substantive input in the future as i get more familiar with all of the discussions.  Thank you.

Attachments:

Thank you, Mr. Hightower, for posting and welcome aboard.

 

Way cool that you were handing out your paper at the "ConCon".  I started a separate thread on that meeting and was hoping Dr. Fetzer or someone would tell us about Dr. Jones' and Dr. Fetzer's presentations.

 

__________

I just sent an email to the A&E site asking the name of the "Editor" of this article you referenced.

 

http://www2.ae911truth.org/info/51

 

Apr 5, 2009  
Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust
— Editor

 

 

 

Excerpt from my email...

 

"

Would you please tell me the name of "Editor" and the name of the publication of which this individual is an "editor."

 

I could not find any person with that title listed anywhere on your website."

 

I received this reply from Mr. Gage to my email 

 

"Thank you very much for contacting us. We read all the messages, but regrettably, we can't possibly respond to each."

 

 

So I doubt that I will receive an answer to my question.  I think it is very unprofessional of these architects and engineers to post articles on their site without stating who wrote the article.

 

_______________

 

Dr. Jones and "Editor" and the unknown author of the Scribd article all are defitintely "playing games" with the various words and phrases they use.

 

nanothermitic material

explosive material

exotic high-tech explosive

nanothermite can be formulated as a high explosive

highly explosive, military grade, nanothermite

 

 

Dr. Jones posted at 9-11 blogger, a response meant for you but not sent directly to you, yet another example of Dr. Shifty Jones' modus operandi.

 

"

“Where is the line between low explosives and high explosives? Rather than getting mired into ad

nauseum debates, I will use the term 'explosive' in conjunction with superthermites/nanothermites IF

the national defense laboratories which developed these materials use the term. Here we go.”"

 

Here we have Dr. Jones throwing in the term "ad nauseum" in his usual professional manner. (Speaking of nausea, methinks I am about to experience explosive vomiting.) He also seems to be employing the "appeal to authority" argument in pulling out and hiding behind  his big guns, the national defense laboratories.  Yet we have no idea how the national defense laboratories use the term "explosive."  My common sense tells me they have a clear defintion for "high explosives" and that there defintiely is a line between "low exploives and high explosives."   I certainly would lose my confidence in our national defense laboratories if they used the terms "explosive" to mean different things in different contexts but never defining the terms.  (My cousin was a Ph.D. engineer with Sandia Labs for 30 years and I do not think Dr. Jones' comment here would fly with him.)

 

And here is another example of Dr. Jones' appeal to authority...

 

"

While the Los Alamos developers note that superthermite can be tailored for use in

'explosive devices' as cited above, specifics are not given, evidently because of 'military' applications.”

So these high-tech, exotic, [ultra top secret] military applications, make the vagueness, the nonspecificity, and loose use of the term "explosive" perfectly fine.

 

Yes, indeed, Jones is putting 'superthermite' in the same category of explosiveness as HMX and RMX, but he is doing this in what I have observed to be his style from the very beginning – disingenuous, slight of hand and shiftiness.

 

Jeannon:

 

On June 10, you indicated that I was wrong in thinking that Jones had alleged that only thermite/nanothermite was used to destory the Twin Towers and not any other conventional explosives. I said I would check into it further which I did.

 

You were correct. I have found quotes where Jones specifically says that he does not limit himself to thermite/nanothermite alone and that other explosive agents may have been used. I am glad you brought it to my attention. Moreover, in the interest of truth, it is important to admit when we have been wrong.

 

This means that Jones has the ability to attach a  "rider" to his thermite/nanothermite hypothesis. He doesn't have to prove that it can do the pressure/volume work because it is always possible that it was done by HMX, RDX or PETN. He can fall back on the claim that the thermite/nanothermite was used only to cut the structureal steel beams prior to their being blown apart with conventional agents. Very ingenious really. Now all he has to explain is the extremely fine dust created, the "China Syndrome" at GZ for over 5 months and the elevated incidence of atypical cancers in emergency responders. I do not believe that anything other than nuclear (fission) reactions can do so as I indicated previously but I am certainly willing to consider other alternatives. I am finishing a short article on the nuclear hypothesis that I will likely post for commentary by the forum.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service