HOW INDEED CAN NANOTHERMITE BE EXPLOSIVE?

[Dr. J. P. Hubert]

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 [e-mail] 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...

[jane doe]

Question: What would a company which has to restrict itself from causing too much ash and polutants from escapinig use to get 2 110 stories reduced to 3 stories, cause the least amount of gas, dust and ash as possible use? This was a plan to implode the buildings to avoid asbestos abatement. Think of it in a way a demolition expert would plan for a demolition causinig as little polution as possible.

 

[jane doe]

I want to withdraw my thought that this could be an incendiary device. This video that I found is probably a photoshop animation. The frames are just TOO BLUE. I suspect someone probably put this out there as bait and I took the bait.

I withdraw my thought. I never was more than a thought. I am more concerned with getting the perps arrested and put in jail.

[Thoth II]

"Thermate, Thermite, SuperThermite, etc, are cutting agents Not High Pressure Wave Explosives. An explosive quality is counterproductive to a cutting agent. Cutting agents must be used in conjunction with explosives. The cutting agents cut and the explosives move the cut product away from their support structures. This is standard demolition. If contact cutting agents produced a generalized 'high pressure wave', i.e. typical explosion', the pressure wave would blow the cutting agent away from the steel it is supposed to cut as well as any other cutting agents in the immediate vicinity. That is why the process of demolition requires cutting agents to cut the steel, then explosives to move the cut pieces away from their support."

 

correct, which is why after the "planes hit" (they certainly did not), until the towers "collapsed" (they did not), the thermate was cutting the steel into small pieces but the mini nukes weren't detonated for about 50 minutes.  Then when the nukes exploded, they had an easy job of pulverizing the concrete and blowing the small steel chunks upward and outward.  Chuck has talked about the lathering up of the buildings which is a by product of the thermitic reactions AlO for those 50 minutes, a white cloud mixed with blackish melted steel spherules.  

[Jeannon Kralj]

 

I presume these are Dr. Hubert's words from 21 hours ago.  I checked the links immediately before and after this paragraph and these words were not there, so guess they are Dr. Hubert's.

 

"Thermate, Thermite, SuperThermite, etc, are cutting agents Not High Pressure Wave Explosives. An explosive quality is counterproductive to a cutting agent. Cutting agents must be used in conjunction with explosives. The cutting agents cut and the explosives move the cut product away from their support structures. This is standard demolition. If contact cutting agents produced a generalized 'high pressure wave', i.e. typical explosion', the pressure wave would blow the cutting agent away from the steel it is supposed to cut as well as any other cutting agents in the immediate vicinity. That is why the process of demolition requires cutting agents to cut the steel, then explosives to move the cut pieces away from their support."

 

From the same posting by Dr. Hubert, and again Dr. Hubert's words, I find this...

 

There are two types of Explosives Low Explosives and High Explosives. Low explosives are said to burn or deflagrate rather than to detonate or explode. The burning gives off a gas which, when properly confined, will cause an explosion. Most low explosives are mechanical mixtures or a mechanical blending of the individual ingredients making up the low explosives.

 

Chuck B. spoke on one of the radio shows regarding how the "thermite charges" (my words but you get the idea) could have been wrapped (or confined) to provide "explosive" capability.  But from reading Dr. Hubert's post, this wrapping or confining would have only produced a "low explosive".  Low explosives do have ability to "push or heave" and these low explosives wrapped around the thermite charges could have flung the cut pieces of the large steel beams outward from the building and I guess had the strength / velocity to fling them out the large distances the beams were said to have been thrown from the building.

 

The shattering of the materials into fine dust, as I understand this "thermite plus mini-nukes" hypothesis in this ostensible "3-step" sequence was solely accomplished by the mini-nukes, either of the fission and/or fission & fusion type.

 

So I still do not quite understand the timing of what I perceive to be 3 steps, i.e.,

Step 1:-cutting,

Step:2 - moving the cut product from their support structures (the throwing or flinging of largish chucks outward from the building, and then

Step 3 -the pulverization into dust of the material.

 

Thoth appears to be saying that Step 2 was accomplished over about a 50 minute period, but I do not think that is what any of us observed on the videos nor does it seem to be what Dr. Jones is saying.  The "Step 2 that Dr. Jones spoke about" is a different "Step 2" than I understand as what is being set forth in this thread and Dr. Jones's Step 2 was not characterized by the throwing of the beams out from the building, but was characterized by "motlen metal" flowing from the building which he suggests is thermite.  Dr. Jones' Step2 was fires inside doing their work but did not involve over this 50 minute period the throwing of beams from the building. (By the way, the yellow color of the flows could have been produced by burning of aluminum as demonstrated in labs by Dr. Wood and by others and not necessarily the burning of steel.)

 

I just think we need to be careful in what we say how those "explosives" that were wrapped or confined with the thermite charges "acted" or functioned.  They started doing their work immediately after the cutting, or so it seems I am being told, so it does not seem to me that timed fuses or ignitions could be connected only with the explosives that were with the thermite charges but were connected with the entire "thermite/explosive" charge, so that when the thermite started cutting, the explosive started moving the cut material away.  But that is not what happened in those 50 minutes.  The "cut material" was not moved away during those 50 minutes.  That time period is said to have been a time of metal burning and melting and flowing."

 

The wrapped or confined thermite/[low]explosive charge and my perceived Step 2 seem to be contradictory.

 

I hope someone understands what I am saying. 

 

I am sure Dr. Fetzer could have epressed this much more succinctly.

"

[Thoth II]

Jeannon,

 

I'll clarify my own opinion:

 

what you call Step 1:  cutting, I meant that that occurs over the 50 minute period.  In other words, after the "plane crash", for 50 minutes they "lathered" in Judy Wood's words, which Chuck has described as a thermitic reaction of thermate on the core steel columns.  This would melt much of the steel in fine tiny sphere spherules and also produce aluminum oxide.  This would produce a grayish cloud that was seen emanating from the tower for much of this 50 minutes.  This is the 50 minutes when the steel was being destroyed.  About half I'd say was turned into these small spheres by heat and got mixed into the AlO cloud to make it darker in appearance, and emanated out open or broken windows.  The other half of steel was simply cut up into small lengths which were observed in rubble afterwards.

 

What you call Step 2 and 3, that was the same time, when the computer program started the demolition sequence.  The mini nukes (about 15 of them) were ignited from top down over 10 seconds, roughly 1 sec per mini nuke.  Some of the energy flung these remaining steel members outward and upward from the ground zero of the mini nuke, and some energy provided the "fracture energy" (talked about by Frank Greening) to pulversize all the concrete into 60 micron dust, which composed most of the clouds seen over Manhatten that day.

 

So just to clarify, I think it was really 2 main steps.

[Jeannon Kralj]

Thanks for clarification.  Will have to think about this a bit but something is still not "gelling" in my mind but not sure what it is.

 

"Step:2 - moving the cut product from their support structures (the throwing or flinging of largish chucks outward from the building"  My Step 2

I understand you see this "moving of the cut product from their support structures" as taking place partly during the 50 minutes in the melting of metal and partly when the nukes go off.  Something not clear or right seeming to me about that.

 

"The other half of steel was simply cut up into small lengths which were observed in rubble afterwards."

 

What caused big beams to spew from the building long distances?  The "pulverization" function of the nukes?

 

Also, a minor issue, but what caused the broken windows?

[Thoth II]

Jeannon,

 

"

I understand you see this "moving of the cut product from their support structures" as taking place partly during the 50 minutes in the melting of metal and partly when the nukes go off.  Something not clear or right seeming to me about that.

 "

 

yes, I would say that the cutting was a thermate reaction occuring for 50 minutes.  During this time , metal and the weld joining metal beams would be melted by the reaction.  Then, most of those metal beams would just lay passively where they were cut from the time they were cut (sometime during the 50 min. interval) until the nukes were ignited. 

 

Then when the nukes went off, it would take about 1 second for the shock wave to hurl these steel beams outward and upward from each mini nuke.  We saw this taking place in the videos as the nukes were exploded one at a time from top down for a total of 10 seconds.  At the same time, we saw the nukes pulverizing concrete and saw the beams within the dust cloud created.

 

"

"The other half of steel was simply cut up into small lengths which were observed in rubble afterwards."

 

What caused big beams to spew from the building long distances?  The "pulverization" function of the nukes?"

 

Actually, these larger beams, as well as some smaller ones, were hurled outward by what physicists call a "shock wave".  Now the shock wave is a powerful compression of air  (similar to a sonic boom but much bigger), and this can do different things to different materials.  Here, the small and even big beams were simply lifted and pushed outward by this shock wave and that is why we saw them hurled outward, according to Newton's 2nd law:  the acceleration they were given was proportional to the pressure of the shock wave, very high for nukes.  The concrete reacted differently to the shock wave.  Because concrete is "inelastic", it simply broke into a zillion 60 micron sized dust particles that became the cloud.

 

As for why the windows were broken, I'm not sure.  We do see the "lather" cloud from one tower though that is evidence of the thermate reaction on the steel.

 

I am very convinced this is actually what happened, and Chuck B is doing the detailed research of course.  

[Thoth II]

Shallel,

 

I would guess that the dust cloud was so thick that it hid the luminescent hot materials in the core.  Also, I am not positive the mini nukes need to be as hot as above, they could be engineered at lower temperatures.

 

Jeannon,

 

I just saw a show on R Lee Ermey the viet vet who had a show about history of field artillery.  That reminds me of the steel columns ejected by the mini nukes, the same physics

[Jeannon Kralj]

Please regard this as a friendly discussion.  It would never be my intention to discount anyone's ideas. 

 

 

“yes, I would say that the cutting was a thermate reaction occuring for 50 minutes.”

I have always acknowledged and understood that that the “thermate reaction” performed the cutting function during the events. But that is not really the subject of this thread though it is important to conjecture about the full sequence of events and timing. The subject of this thread is “How Indeed Can Nanothermite be Explosive.”

You say that during this 50 minutes when the beams were being “cut” that “metal and the weld joining metal beams would be melted.” So here again you are just referring to the cutting property of thermate as well as the high heat / melting of metal property of thermate, and do not seem to be referring to the “explosive / explosives / explosions” that were part of the “nanothermite” that Dr. Jones and Mr. Gage consistently reference.

Dr. Steven Jones, and Richard Gage / A&E for 911 Truth have almost constantly drummed in the idea of “thermate / thermite”, and “explosive” “Explosives”, and “molten metal.” You can just listen to any radio show that Gage has been on over the last year or two and count how many times he uses those words. As Dr. Hubert and Mr. Hightower have pointed out so well, and as I have expressed a like opinion, Dr. Jones and Mr. Gage have not used these words in a logical clear way, not in their speech and not in their research papers. They have been so vague and unclear so as to be confusing, and I think deliberately confusing.
That “melting of metal and weld” that went on during the cutting that you describe does not seem to incorporate the concept of “explosives or explosions.”

 

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

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.

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.

When discussing these matters in terms of conjectures regarding steps and sequences and functions, as I think they should be, I still am properly confused by the question “How Indeed Can Nanothermite be Explosive.”

 

[Chuck Boldwyn]

Shallel Octavia said:

 

"Chuck B is doing the detailed research of course."

 

 

How can a temperature of millions of degrees not be visible? Can I get an answer?

 

[Jeannon Kralj]

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: "[e-mail]" , "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...

[Thoth II]

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.