9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths


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


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.


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


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.


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”).


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.


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.


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.


(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,”


(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

Views: 3410

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Sphere hitting tower isolated frames 2nd said to be 2nd plane.flv

As I said, you can't see the sphere in this copy. If I ever find what I copies, I will post it.

I found the original, It has been pulled for copyright infringement. Too bad.

I have viewed the whole video which explains what you're talking about, click on link 

HERE...  This is apparently what the Anonymous Physicist is referring to when he says the NPT is proven,

The subject of this thread has been diverted.


I would simply say that nothing has refuted...



the original posting by Dr. Hubert.


The specific findings of Mr. Hightower have not been addressed.

Yes, you are correct Jeannon in what you wrote directly above.


Somehow the topic was changed and I did not correct it. Too new to the Forum I guess. Sorry.



"Towers were Jachin & Boaz the pillars of Jacob SHOULD BE Solomon's PIllars. Masonry is a copy of Jewish Qabala to the Nth degree."

Big mistake by ME.


Should be the Pillars of Solomon, not Jacob, Jacob's ladder is what mason's use as a symbol for reaching different dimensions. Humans have 3 dimensions, but the demons and spirits are trapped in the 4th dimensioni. Rituals by satanist/witches/kabbalists/masons bring the demon creatures into the present during rituals, which gives the demonic power.


The priest/priestess who summons the demonic spirits stands in a triangle in a pentagram to protect him or herself from the summoned demons. See Crowley's ritual of Abramelin performed at Boleskin House, Loch Ness. He summoned demons, but never banished them. Until this day Boleskin House is full of chaotic demons, not to mention the Loch Ness Monster. Boleskin House is on Youtube.


You can not isolate one specific point from the whole. The question was "Can nanothermite be explosives?"

My answer was the ball/sphere fired at WTC2 was the incendiary device. Since I answered what the incendiary device was, you are now whining, Typical paid perps. Someone had a valid answer, O my.


Just as when a child is in math, algebra or trigonometry class is told to show his work by the teacher, "Show your work, it's 50% of your grade," I am giving you the background work of WHY 911 was perpetrated by satanists, kabbalists, occultists, masons and witches. I am giving you the reason WHY. I am showing my work.


911 had to be pulled off with no problems. There were problems. The plane icon generated by PVI virtual media services [PVI sold out to ESPN2 and Sportvision in Dec.2010 (no doubt scared of prosecutiion)] went past its end boundary--the edge of the building--because the camera moved from the original mapped shot. The reset button on the keyboard was not pressed to correct the new shot. The border moved. Contingency: lie about it, tell everyone they didn't see what they saw, put a Chyron lower third over the video to hide it. The world is too stupid to see what they saw.


Everything that happened on 911, the why of 911, and the who of 911 is all interrelated. You can not discuss one thing without drawing the why, where, when into the discussion. When all else fails, whine that comments are off topic. Perps do that on the David Icke forum all the time. You are not new with this play.


Once again, the sphere shot at WTC2 was the incendiary device for explosions. IMO, the rest of the explosions were on timing devises.


The ball shot at WTC2 was in editing covered by the generated plane animation which through the knowledge of a computer genius figured out that the pod on the plane was, in fact, the ball/sphere that was shot at WTC2.


Its been 10 years, it is time for the perps to be put in jail, stolen insurance funds recouped, huge fines paid, and put all the 1000s of perps in jail.




Jeannon Kralj said:

The subject of this thread has been diverted.




PVI was started in 1990, I have the data about PVI in some file but I am too lazy to look for it now. If you google, PVI, you will be redirected to Sportvision, one of the companies who bought PVI. I said PVI was broadcasting lines on football games in 2004. May have been earlier, but I am not sure without checking my notes. PVI took down its website.


The original owners of PVI filed for bankruptcy late 2001. The company reorganized and was purchased by Cablevision who owned it in 2007. Of that I am sure. I downloaded a video from their site which I might upload on youtube or not, copyright infringement. Simon Shack doesn't know about PVI, or choses to avoid the subject. PVI doesn't work with  masks, it is a linear color based generating graphics system. A 3D model is built from a 2D camera shot. I suppose there are other programs such as LVIS (linear virtual imaging system), but I don't know what they are.


PVI virtual media services which generates lines of scrimmage, downlines, and logos on football fields since 2004 evolved from that computer.

Jeannon Kralj said:
" 2,000 missing people" never existed. They were composites of other people, created for the death hoax fraud of 911. Each death hoax collected $2 million. no one died, they were vicsims. FRIDOGFRIHED.dk has been manufacturing fake people for the fake war on terror since 1992. See, the Vicsim Report.




Answer: The group shot of the Perps is at the end of this video 5:34 7 of many involved in 911 Fraud:



Bush, Cheney, Tenet, Ann Cappelletti, Bill Gates, Giuliani, Condi Rice, Scwarzenegger, Silverstein, Soros & Saddam Hussein, 33 degr mason, buddy of GHWB, not dead, hiddlen, needed by the other 10 for the mega ritual of 911, Each was in his/her place 


I just read through Mr. Hightower's paper again.  His paper was originally "published" on the Internet at




I thank Mr. Hightower for explaining the chemistry of this in very elemental terms for people with almost no knowledge of the physical sciences like me.


I find it very odd that our forum's resident chemistry expert (Master's degree level and former, now retired,  high school chemistry teacher) Chuck Boldwyn did not respond in this thread.  I would not even expect him to respond with complex chemical language, but would at least expect Mr. Boldwyn to applaud the questions that have logically occurred to Mr. Hightower and for Mr. Hightower's  very good attempt at answering those questions.


The key thing that I get from all of this is that Dr. Steven Jones et al., contrary to putting forward  truly scientific scholarly studies, deliberately put forth weak shoddy "studies" that failed to define their key terms and failed to back up their "study's" foundational assertions.


Here are some phrases I took from Mr. Hightower's paper that I focus on from a nonprofessional stance...


"confusing these issues"


"He [Jones] 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."


"By failing to make this distinction Jones has misled nearly the entire 911 truth movement into believing that nanothermite is a super explosive"


"nanothermite theory advocates should be upfront and truthful about these issues, and clearly elaborate upon the factors missing from their theory


I would sum up my opinion by saying that Dr. Jones has been dishonest and unscientific in all of his material and his associates have been too.  They are all very smart people with advanced degrees in the physical sciences so I have to conclude that their dishonesty, in various ways, is deliberate.


I remember Dr. Jones coming here to Austin and putting on a "performance" at a room on the University of Texas campus.  I watched the performance on video and found it quite entertaining but in no way convincing from a factuality standpoint.  Dr. Jones has kind of theatrical personna.  He seems to rely on the "wow factor" and wowed his audience with his Ph.D. in physics and his academic and government career in matters physicas and matters top-secret military weaponry.  The audience were local "truthers" who sort of bobbed their heads up and down like one of those little dog statues that people have in their cars.


 I have to say that from the beginning I observe that Dr. Steven Jones' "affect" was inappropriate.  I commented a long time ago on this to Dr. Fetzer when I observed Dr. Jones performance on that panel out in L.A. that Alex Jones arranged and that was nationally televised at least two times.


Dr. Jones seems meek and humble but there is something off kilter about it.  He seems smiley faced but he smiles at inappropriate times and in appropriate ways.  There is a condescending tone and it is like he is going to try very hard to communicate with his audience on their kindergarten level but he will virtuously make the sacrifice.  There is something fake or theatrical about his personna or affect.  (I am not going to look this up but "affect" is a term psychiatrists and psychologists use and it kind of means  - you just look at the person physically and the expressions they make while talking and their body language and their physical demeanor and you infer "mood" descriptions from that data and you call that "affect.")   I would be super interested in learning what a honest psychiatrist would say about Dr. Jones' affect from observing some of Dr. Jones' public presentations and appearances.  Even just listening to Dr. Jones on his radio guest shots to me displays some very odd characteristics.


from Mr. Hightower's summarizing comments...



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."


I have already posted how Dr. Fetzer in one of his blogs with link  has shown that Dr. Jones and company have no intention of doing further work to clear up these claring deficiencies in their "study" and indeed in the whole rhetoric from the beginning put out by Dr. Jones and his acolytes.


Chuck Boldwyn seems to just accept without questioning, like Mr. Hightower who also has high level chemistry knowledge, the "explosive nanothermite"  idea of Dr. Jones. 


I appreciate Mr. Boldwyn's work and he has awakened me to alternative plausible explanations of data observed at Ground Zero and on videos that do not involve a directed energy weapons hypothesis.


Dr. Jones simply says he is saying what he found and that what he found and told us about in regard to what was in the dust samples is true and correct and the samples were collected and handled in a scientifically correct way.  But subsequent commentary by Dr. Harrit and other people in Dr. Jones camp make it clear that they do not say "explosive thermite" was the ONLY substance used to destroy the Twin Towers, that they think further study on dust samples is needed because theirs is not complete but that they are not going to do those further studies. 


 Dr. Jones et al. never even postulated a sequence of events that effected a tower's destruction.  They never indentified what step in that sequence would have employed the "explosive nanothermite".  They never said exactly how the "explosive nano thermite" acted on the material it was used on, for example how it cut or weakened the major steal beams in the building.  Mr. Boldwyn has made some conjectures in that regard but they seem kind of strained or odd to me. 


For example, one about the third show back with Dr. Fetzer, I think it was said that the explosive thermite was needed in the sequence of events to act as a super cutter to cut completely through the very thick huge steal beams.  It was also indicated that the cut was complete and clearn and very level so that the columns would still be standing though no longer attached.  Then a later step in the sequence performed by the mini nukes carried out the major part of the destruction, destruction which could not have been accomplished without the needed thermite cutting step.  


I am still unclear how making the thermite the explosive kind is needed for the cutting function but maybe it does enhance the cutting function somehow and allows for the integrity of the cutting function without spoiling it by the explosives added.



Reply to Discussion


© 2022   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service