911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news, posts in the blogs section are the responsibility of the poster, readers are encouraged to check the facts and form their own conclusions.
Responses to questions regarding thermite, nanothermite and conventional explosives used in the WTC destruction.
Here I field questions that come to me fairly often, to help get the facts out and to counter misrepresentations and misunderstandings. I expect to make edits for a while and welcome comments.
1. Can nanothermites (also called superthermites) be explosive?
The definition of “explosive” can lead to endless debates. Is a flash of light required? Is a loud sound required? How loud? What rate of energy generation is required for a material to be called an explosive? 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.
I heard April Gallop speak a few years ago and had the opportunity to talk with her, when we both participated in a conference in Irvine, California. April was in the Pentagon with her infant son on Sept. 11, 2001, when the devastation occurred. There was no warning. We know from Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony that Dick Cheney et al. were following the progress of the jet as it came in towards the Pentagon, "50 miles out", 30 miles out, etc. Yet there was no warning to April Gallop or her co-workers in the Pentagon, and the jet was not intercepted. (See articles in the Journalof911Studies.com ) Over 100 died in the Pentagon disaster. April suffered physical injury from the blast and has filed a lawsuit charging Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and others.
She deserves to be heard. But her case has been dismissed by Judge Denny Chin of United States District Court for Southern District of New York and is now in appeal status before the Circuit Court in Connecticut. Can we do SOMETHING to help April Gallop in her quest for justice and a fair hearing?
When I jumped into the ring to study 9/11 events in early 2005, I found that there were numerous wild and even conflicting claims. It was the “wild, wild west.” Some were saying that no planes hit the WTC Towers at all, and some said (in 2005 or soon thereafter) an energy beam from space knocked the Towers down. There were NO published peer-reviewed scientific papers in the field. To make a long story VERY short, this confused situation changed via experimental data and peer-reviewed papers published by Kevin Ryan, Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Frank Legge, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, James Gourley, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, Tony Szamboti, and myself and others. Now the science of 9/11 and the use of pyrotechnics/explosives is on firm experimental footing and serious challengers to our papers will need to find a way to publish peer-reviewed papers of their own (in established journals preferably) if they can. (They have not done so.) That's how science works-- peer-reviewed published papers stand until challenged by another peer-reviewed paper.
Let me know what you think -- I find evidence that Glenn Beck in the last few weeks is raising questions about the government "creating a situation" -- a false flag event.
Exhibit 1: "if you ever got an oppressive state, if you ever had people who didn't respect the Constitution at the top, the fastest thing they could do to take over is create a situation and then have the Army march into these states.” http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/48957/
As a Full Professor of Physics at BYU, I reviewed dozens of scientific papers as a peer-reviewer. I have reviewed papers since accepting early retirement from BYU in 2007. And I have published as author or co-author over fifty papers which have been subjected to peer-review. Based on my experience in the peer-review system, I can add that it is not the place of an author of a paper or even an editor to reveal the names of peer-reviewers, but it is precedented and generally acceptable in the scientific community for a peer-reviewer to disclose his/her OWN name and role in the review of an important paper. This is the case for a prominent reviewer of the Harrit, Farrer, et al. paper -- one of the reviewers discloses his name and further comments on our paper and his review of it here: http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-truth-evidence-of-energetic.html . The reviewer's name is Prof. David L. Griscom. Among his impressive credentials, Prof. Griscom is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and a Fellow of the AAAS. I quote a brief excerpt from his blog and encourage you to read all of it:
After a period of several weeks, Bentham Scientific has restored access to our "Fourteen Points" paper, but the link has changed -- please update your links to this paper:
"Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the
World Trade Center Destruction"
Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F.
Szamboti, James R. Gourley
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, pp.35-40, Vol 2 (April 2008)
The new link is: http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/articles/V002/35TOCIEJ.pdf
(The old (defunct) link is:
I am incorrectly quoted (to put it mildly) in http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/05/steven-jones-on-wtc-7-collapse-we.html :
"Steven Jones (above, left) admitted today that he and other 9/11 researchers "screwed up on the collapse time of WTC 7. We blew it."
No, I never said that. The blog goes on with its despicable misrepresentations, putting words in my mouth that I never said:
"Responding to the overnight controversy, Steven Jones announced this morning that WTC 7 did indeed take over 13 seconds to collapse. 'We screwed up. We had never seen the CBS video when we claimed that it took WTC 7 6.5 seconds to collapse. We only relied on the street video that does not show the Penthouses. By the time we saw the CBS video, we had so much invested in the 6.5-second collapse time, we could not disappoint our supporters who were successfully using the 6.5 free fall time to push 9/11 Truth. We just ignored the evidence.' "
Checking today, the count of architects and engineers calling for a new, serious 9/11 investigation is 1197:
"1197 architectural and engineering professionals and 8178 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation. The petition is open to everyone."
Note that the total membership approaches a significant milestone: 10,000 members!
This calls for an effort to get a few hundred more to sign up -- and then for a big celebration. I am inviting people to sign up on forums that I frequent (including 911blogger).
Perhaps you will be #10,000 ;)
A few days ago I was asked by a distinguished Professor at the University of Massachusetts what happened to me at BYU, in my own words. I often get this question and would like to say the following.
1. In September 2005, I presented a colloquium at Brigham Young University (BYU) in a large auditorium, presenting the physical evidence I had accumulated by then that the “official story” of the 9/11 disaster (that it was all due to Al Qaeda ALONE with no US foreknowledge of the attacks) was highly suspicious. I had invited professors from across campus and many came, from numerous disciplines including physics, math, psychology, engineering. I asked them to take the “kid gloves off” and tell me where I was in error. In particular, we watched the rapid, nearly-symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 – which was NOT hit by a plane and yet fell to the ground seven hours after the Towers were completely destroyed.
Profound Implications of the Observed Downward Acceleration of the North Tower -- Article by David Chandler Published
The editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies are pleased to announce publication of the following peer-reviewed article in the February 2010 volume of the Journal:
Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics
By David Chandler
Physicist David Chandler continues his insightful analysis of the destruction of three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11/2001 in this very readable paper. From the summary:
I am pleased to announce the translation of the peer-reviewed article on “Active Thermitic Materials” by Prof. Niels Harrit et al. into Spanish and German, published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
May I take this occasion to wish all of you a Happy New Year.
In the past I have urged all to acquire at least a three-month (preferably 1-year) supply of food and water, wherever this is legal. Now to add to this – I urge you to have a rural place of safety to go quickly to, perhaps in groups of families or friends, far away from the large cities. In a case where trucking of food into the cities is curtailed, or the electric power is out, or an EMP blast, or any number of scenarios where services to cities are cut, it will clearly be prudent to have pre-arranged retreat(s). The goals of self-sufficiency and voluntary-simplicity that some have been discussing “theoretically” in the Truth Movement for years can be quickly achieved with pre-planning and work and cooperation.
Exchange of emails (March 2009) with Robert Erickson, producer of the National Geographic special on 9/11
A special on 9/11 has just been shown on the National Geographic Channel, produced by Robert Erickson. Robert also conducted interviews with me and others. In March 2009, Prof. David Ray Griffin and I and Gregg Roberts exchanged emails with Robert Erickson which demonstrate our efforts to get Mr. Erickson and his team to be accurate and fair in their treatment of our scientific work regarding 9/11 – particularly the evidence for the use of explosives in the World Trade Center destruction. For the record, then, I have pulled together our exchanges of emails.
Robert Erickson, emailed David Ray Griffin on 3/27/09:
"if Jones is surprised that we just placed bags of thermite around the column...what else would Jones have suggested? "
I was informed of the question above and I responded on 3/28/09 as follows:
Bags of commercial thermite set against a steel column -- what a pathetic "experiment." Not anywhere close to representing my views, as you must know, from our discussion about the red/gray chips and the crucial distinction between ordinary thermite and super-thermite! What a terrible and unfair straw-man joke you are evidently trying to pull.
Noted 9/11 research Dr. Frank Legge has published a revised version of his paper with additional notes and discussion, “What Hit the Pentagon?” The paper is available at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
His first version of the paper generated a great deal of discussion about this important issue. In presenting this revision, Dr. Legge notes:
“This version has been prepared to take into account a number of issues raised by critics and defenders of the original paper. Discussion of the implications of accepting or rejecting the official position that a 757 hit the Pentagon has been expanded and clarified. I am very grateful for the help provided. All significant alterations have been identified and discussed in footnotes.”
No doubt this revised version will encourage further discussion of what hit the Pentagon, and perhaps more importantly, a renewed push to obtain release of withheld video footage that will show unequivocally what hit the Pentagon – and a renewed interest in the whistleblower testimony of Secretary of Transportation (at the time) Norman Mineta.
As we approach the 8th anniversary of 9/11, we can work for increased media attention.... and get it.
An article just came out in City Weekly, a newspaper in Salt Lake City:
The author, Eric Peterson, interviewed me in my home in rural Spring City, Utah. (I moved away from the densely populated Wasatch front area last year.) He makes some good points while missing a few points, IMO -- but I would like to hear what you think of this news article. The comments at cityweekly.net so far are supportive of 9/11 research.
The reporter did his homework -- contacting BYU, Fetzer and Greening to get "balance", which is fair. And he caught Fetzer in an error when he blamed Greening's non-appearance at a conference on me unfairly. "Greening sides with Jones," the article says on this point. Greening got this straight, but makes other criticisms without substantiation.
The reporter says that "James Farrer is currently giving presentations on the nano-thermite research in Europe" -- he meant, Niels Harrit. I could nit-pick a few other points.
Announcing two new papers by Dr. Frank Legge (Ph.D., Chemistry):
1) "Controlled Demolition at the WTC: an Historical Examination of the Case" provides a brief history of research related to explosive demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001, from Dr. Legge's point of view. Cogent and pithy; worth the read.
2) "Frank Greening versus Isaac Newton" provides a brief expose of the "lapse" by F. Greening in understanding Newton's Third Law -- and the significance of this gaffe by Greening. Sometimes humorous, certainly enlightening.