9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

Hey Jon, your videos are

Hey Jon, your videos are getting much better. Welcome to the thermite experimenters club. I would send DVDs of this to NIST, Myth Busters and National Geographic.

Thanks Jon


That is beautiful.


NIST and National Geographic

NIST and National Geographic should be taken to task for their shoddy "experimentation".

This video shows that thermate, even a homebrew variety, can be applied to rapidly cut through steel and produce similar effects on steel as seen in the WTC wreckage.

If this can be done so easily by one person who doesn't do this stuff for a living, imagine the effectiveness of thermitic compounds specially tailored in a state-of-the-art laboratory, manufactured to military grade specifications, rigged by experts in the demolition field, and then detonated with high precision, computer controlled split second timing sequences.

Game over, NIST et al. Be real, and admit you've lost.

NIST & Nat Geo are truly

NIST & Nat Geo are truly talking out of both sides of their mouths with their theory that office fires brought down the towers, simple office fires bring 450,000 tons of steel and 110 floors of reinforced concrete is rendered to dust in 10 seconds, yet with thermate testing the steel is indestructible.

Yes the term "double speak" comes to mind...

Excellent video and even though it is obvious from greenback's point that their arguments are simply silly, it is great that the public have tools such as this video to help them sort the good theory from the bad!

Thank you very much for this superior work!

Kindest regards John

You're right! Awesome demonstrations, Jonathon.

Jonathon Cole has done an illuminating series of experiments using thermate -- that is, with sulfur added to the thermite.

As I explained in my first 9/11-research paper ("Why Indeed..."), the sulfur along with molten iron from the thermitic reaction will strongly attack steel beams, giving the high-temperature sulfidation results observed and reported by WPI scientists. They found sulfur INSIDE the steel beam remnants from WTC 7 and the Towers, steel beams having a strange "swiss-cheese" appearance, and published their results.
Such results could not come from ordinary office fires, but certainly can come from thermate, as graphically shown by Jonathon Cole.

What is remarkable is that the National Geographic crew did not even TRY to use SULFUR in their sophomoric experiment with ordinary thermite just sitting next to steel. (Jonathon may wish to emphasize their "oversight" in failing to add sulfur to the thermite.)

Jonathon took the experimental evidence showing the presence of sulfur based on actual steel from the WTC rubble found by the WPI researchers, and then demonstrated conclusively that the thermate (with sulfur added) will indeed cut through steel beams!

Great work, Jonathon.

One note: while sulfur is crucial, barium nitrate is less so...
I did not find much barium in iron-rich spheres from the WTC dust. Sometimes, yes. I looked at hundreds of the iron-rich spheres found in the WTC dust supplied by Jeanette MacKinley and others (see our "Active Thermitic Materials Discovered" paper for the chain-of-custody of samples).

OTOH, I frequently found the presence of manganese in iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust, at higher concentrations than present in structural steel. I had a sample of steel from the WTC for comparison. (Note the cleverness of this -- manganese effectively "hides" because some Mn is present in steel.) The WTC steel sample was obtained as a gift from a fellow who assembled a monument of WTC steel and had some left over. The same fellow provided paint from the steel which we have demonstrated is MUCH different in composition compared with the red material found in the WTC dust (again referring to the Harrit et al. paper).

Bottom line -- I recommend that Jonathon try KMnO4 instead of (or along with a lesser amount of Barium nitrate and of course, sulfur -- added to thermite.

The presence of Mn will then be consistent with what we observed in the WTC dust.

And stand well back... Dr. Farrer and I did a few thermate experiments at BYU using KMnO4 added to ordinary thermite plus suflur and the thermitic mixture burns VERY rapidly and extremely hot.

We cut through steel cups; Jonathon cuts through steel beams! Excellent demonstrations of the ability of thermate to cut through steel, disproving the pathetic non-demonstration done by National Geographic using thermite set next to steel WITHOUT SULFUR.

I wish to acknowledge the help of Dr. Farrer, director of the TEM lab at BYU, and BYU student Daniel Farnsworth , who worked with me in analyzing the WTC dust. Another student contributed significantly to the electron microscope studies at BYU of the WTC dust, Michelle J -- but she has chosen not to be explicitly named on our scientific papers (concerned about her standing at the time at BYU). These studies were begun shortly after I accepted early retirement from BYU.

(Dr Steven E. Jones)

To ignite the thermate, we used an ordinary 4th-of-July SPARKLER

most of the time. We learned that a magnesium-strip such as you used, Jonathon, will start the thermitic reaction, but that a sparkler was much easier to work with and in fact more reliable in igniting the thermate. (I'm referring to experiments at BYU by Dr. Farrer and myself.) The sparkler was ignited using a quick pass of a propane torch held by a welder's glove (and then we stood well back).
You might want to try this approach.

The thermitic reaction produces molten iron sparks as you know, and in your device, a blast of molten iron plus sulfur than will cut through steel as you have demonstrated.
Molten iron from the thermitic reaction will cause immediate 4th-degree burns if it lands on the skin. I strongly suspect that many victims in the Towers were thus burned... an autopsy would show this, but I understand that no autopsies were performed (from this crime scene). Sorry to be so gruesome. Further, the burned cars found near the Towers show signs of being hit by the molten iron-plus sulfur product of thermate, as discussed in papers in the Journalof911Studies.

You must protect yourself from this molten metal during your experiments.

The cat's-meow experiment would involve a small chip of the red/gray material found in the WTC dust, a powerful pyrotechnic, placed next to a sparkler which in turn is in contact with your thermate-cutter material. The red-chip would be ignited by sending a current through it, using a radio-receiver to receive the command, thus ignited remotely. This would also increase safety.

One could use the red-chip as an initiator all by itself if a large enough chip could be found in the WTC dust, but our findings show that this material is brittle and has been reduced to small chips (evidently from the explosive demolition process itself).

I should also ask you to tell us who OPPOSES your experiments. As you probably know, I received incredible opposition (including threats to my career at BYU) to even talking about THERMATE. I even received a threat of a lawsuit unless I shut up about thermite. (I told him that thermite can be purchased on E-bay and that I would not be silenced... so many lives were/are at stake. April 2006.) These threats were mostly from an engineer who had contacts with Homeland Security. This fellow was interviewed in the documentary titled "HYPOTHESIS" by Brett Smith (a student at Utah Valley University) which was shown at the 9/11 movie fair in the Bay area two months ago. I hope Brett will make his documentary more widely available. It is excellent.

Again, please be careful.

Increased Smoke Just Prior To Tower Collapses?

It seems that in the case of both WTC 1 & 2, that in the few minutes just prior to each collapse, black smoke from both towers suddenly seems to thicken from the "fire floors", suggesting the ignition of a new fire fuel source or other energetic incendiary.

Perhaps a good quality, stationary and sped-up video of each tower during the minutes just before their collapses might confirm this.

As an alternative thermite/thermate ignition source

you might consider the reaction between potassium permanganate and glycerol. It is extremely energetic and has the advantage of starting up slowly so there's plenty of time to back up and get out of the way.

It's an easy process that I have experience with in thermite reactions. You just add a few tablespoons of potassium permanganate to make a little mound on the surface of the thermite/thermate and then add about one or two teaspoons of glycerol (all ballpark figures). It takes about 2-5 minutes or so for it to react.


whoever you are out there in your workshop. just hold your head up high.

can't thank you enough.

this 14 minutes of genius step-by-step takes 9 years of NISTs LIES, national geographic popular mechanics bullshit, worthless tramp mythbusters,
- 9 years being lashed by the disturbed 911mediapropaganda press

and delivers a salvation.

Cause and effect has been established

The freefall acceleration of WTC 7 and lack of deceleration of WTC 1 cannot occur in a natural collapse induced by aircraft impact and/or fire.

As this video demonstrates, methods for the structural degradation necessary to produce these phenomena are explainable by the iron microspheres and active thermitic material found in the dust, as well as the molten iron and steel observed pouring out of the northeast corner of WTC 2 just prior to its collapse.

In light of the fact that no steel framed high rise buildings had ever collapsed due to fire, the inexcusable behavior in saving less than 0.5% of the steel from the towers and none from WTC 7 (except for the one small piece in the WPI examination) for use in a comprehensive investigation, is Prima Facie evidence of a cover-up and obstruction of justice.

The three issues above are far more than sufficient to prompt a new investigation, to determine the real causes and perpetrators of these collapses, to be undertaken. The investigation should start with the destruction of evidence which would invariably lead to the perpetrators.


...how we transition from the "fact" (acceleration/deceleration) and begin to understand "how".

So many great contributions from so many fine intellects as Jon, Tony, et al..


Very Interesting

Note that the holes created in the experiment steel were similar to those found in WTC steel samples and possessing similarly sharp edges.

sharp edges

Yes sharp edges were observed in the early photographs and are by themselves proof of explosives. Only an explosive can heat one side of a piece of steel fast enough that it can melt and be blown away, and the heat source gone, before the other side, so close, can melt.

Interesting Point

Interesting point.

Thank you

Another superb demonstration. Thank you, Jonathan Cole. You are a genius!

This is exactly the sort of experiment I have been waiting to see.


A real demonstration of what a real researcher is capable of discovering on his own, when his only quest is to discover the Truth...
Your videos are getting very sharp and to the point, visually and in your comments as well! Bravo! Thanks for all your hard work!

Great work Jon

Thanks so much for your hard work.

Couple of points to consider on the composition:

The first point is on the discussion of the eutectic formation in samples tested. Thermite burns at a temp over 2500C, so the eutectic formation is not necessary for cutting steel.

Although WPI and FEMA showed that the eutectic forms and this evidence is great proof of the presence of thermate, the references I've found refer to S as part of a binder additive in thermite that enhances the burn properties. In other words, S is not necessarily used to produce the eutectic. This is often assumed and is probably not accurate.

We shouldn't confuse the presence of the eutectic with an intent by the perpetrators to form a low-melting eutectic throughout the buildings.

Secondly, on the use of barium, note that barium was seen to coincide with iron and aluminum in the EPA air emission testing.

"The EPA data show that, of the 28 days that aluminum was measured in air during 2001, the dates of maximum detection fall on the same dates as that of iron for the top 9 days in each case. Barium shares eight of these top nine daily maxima."

Question on barium

Mr. Ryan, how does the observation about barium emissions correlate with the statement by Prof. Jones above which seems to downplay the significance of barium, since it was present only in very low quantities in the iron spherules he studied?

That question

...would be answered through more experimentation.

For example, spheres formed from the igintion of a thermate mixture containing barium nitrate could be tested to see if the elemental spectra are similar to that of WTC dust spheres.

USGS noted that barium was one of the elements it found in WTC dust that was "relatively high compared to mean concentrations in natural soils."

On a related note, EPA and others considered using "iron spheres" as a signature component for WTC dust. They abandoned this idea for unknown reasons.
(top of p 5 of 11)

Questions for Kevin

Is it your observation that the application of the sol-gel nanothermite (or nanothermate) that you once experimented with by burning to form iron microspherules would likely be more effective in Jon's experiments than ordinary thermate?

Nanothermites and WTC dust

I want to do a video showing how sol-gel nanothermite (using ordinary powdered aluminum, not the nano variety) is made via the sol-gel process. But, even though the nanothermite/thermate synthesis seems straightforward, simple, easy, and safe, I feel it's best to seek advice from someone with more experience with it.

Do you have any advice to give? For example, what proton scavenger did you use? Propylene oxide or epichlorohydrin (and which is better)?

In the case of a nanothermate synthesis, after a reaction between propylene oxide and iron chloride to form sol-gel iron oxide is completed, do you know (or even think you know) if the remaining ethanol solvent or possible traces of propylene oxide would react with the addition of other oxidants such as sulfur and/or potassium permanganate? Any experience with the addition of other kinds of oxidants?

Also, once the gel drys, does it really form a uniform solid monolith, something that before drying can be cast to a shape? Or does it become brittle and powdery? Just wondering if the descriptions found in the literature really match the reality of the experiments.

On the whole, is the sol-gel synthesis exothermic (as in, worrisome exothermic)?

Would you be willing to do a detailed write-up on the experimental process, something that I or anyone else can easily follow?

Any other details that you can offer about this experiment would be most welcome as I can't think of any other questions for the time being (but I know they'll unexpectedly pop up sooner or later in my head).


Mekt Ranzz

I think Jon has very effectively shown that a typical thermate mixture can do the job quite nicely. He has simultaneously shown that there are people like Ruppert's NG Channel and the New Mexico Tech's EMRT who have intentionally deceived the public on these issues.

The exact use of nanothermite at the WTC has not been determined. We know it was there, but we still need to know for what purposes it was there. For example, my view is that one purpose was to provide a deceptive source of fire and presumption of failure that otherwise not have been possible.

I've used propylene oxide in the scavenger role and iron oxide as the oxidant, per the LLNL formulations. If you send me a message, we can discuss further. My email is kncryan (at) msn (dot) com .

[edited for spam protection - LW]

Thanks, Kevin!

I'll be writing soon. :)

Thank you sir!

I appreciate the reply.

Certainly, someone's going to

Certainly, someone's going to have to bring this to jref's attention.

I wonder who that's going to be.

Argument Clinic

Yes, the jref forum can be

Yes, the jref forum can be very much like that, but I think there is a value in being exposed to the "debunker" arguments. They are more or less preparation of what to expect when the official account has to be defended against precise and convincing demonstrations such as this one.

I read portions of your thread over at JREF

and I can't believe the comments those guys are making. Probably no amount of evidence will ever convince them.

Thanks for standing up for us there, BTW.

Fantastic job!

Thanks very much!

Best. Video. Ever. I'm

Best. Video. Ever. I'm hoping Gage et al have seen your brilliant work!


Simply outstanding.

Great work Jon. Bravo. The next step is to take all this evidence and present it to the full body of congress.

It's a sad, sad, sad, reflection of our congress when baseball players are brought before congress with FULL media coverage start to finish, station to station, to investigate steroid use in baseball, but won't take 5 mins to look at the mountain of evidence that could help lead to real perp-traitors.

Again great work Jon.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear." - Douglas MacArthur


This is "debunker" pwnage on an epic scale.

Very impressive

I had hoped somebody would eventually conduct these experiments, and then you did! Great work! National Geographic has been blatantly dishonest. Obviously, the very fact that thermite/thermate TH3 is used by the military to render, for example, tanks inoperable for the enemy shows this.

I don't believe thermate necessarily needs barium nitrate. On the eerily-named debunker blog "RonMossad", commenter "wardogs" says the following:

"In fact, K9's don't react to residue at all, but rather odors. Our dogs, and the dogs we train for incendiary work are specifically trained to react to certain chemicals found in explosives/incendiaries. In the case of thermite/thermate that chemical is Barium Nitrate. Sulfur is also one of the compounds we train for that are found in thermate and explosives either as an initial component or as a by product of detonation."

I think it would be difficult to train dogs specifically for sulfur. I think you'd get a lot of false alarms. Didn't some analysts claim sulfur was liberated from the wallboard in the case of WTC 7 to produce the steel damage observed by WPI? Why didn't the 'sulfur-detecting dogs' notice this then?

You did the experiment to prove steel columns could be damaged and even cut by thermate and you used thermate TH3 for this purpose, it appears. But could thermate without barium nitrate also have the same effects?

Also, I don't think nanothermite such as found in the WTC dust could be detected by bomb sniffing dogs. The chips that prof. Jones found contain no taggant. Read the link, it actually renders the 'taggant' argument implausible, and it's not that difficult for the military to produce conventional explosives such as C4 without taggant, either. Mind you the weapons caches discovered in Gladio investigations contained grenades without serial numbers, something unheard of, but specifically produced so that these weapons were untraceable to the manufacturers. So we know NATO can and will do these things.

Great video. However,

Great video. However, there's one thing he does wrong and that's misquote the official story by saying NIST says the WTC steel melted. That may have been the initial explanation before the "investigations" began, that the jet fuel caused it to melt, but years later, the story was changed. After the 9/11 truth movement pointed out that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, they changed their story and said, "the steel loses half its strength at app. 1200 degrees F. It didn't melt, it just lost its strength."

The video is awesome, but debunkers are going to jump all over his misquote of NIST by saying the WTC steel melted. The official story these days is "It didn't have to melt, only lose strength to cause complete collapse."

I've never bought

the story about steel needing to lose only half of it's strength to cause abrupt and sudden complete loss of all strength, especially with the redundancyfactor in place.
I've watched this vid with awe, simply amazing. On the other hand I'm having a hard time figuring why these experiments haven't been done any sooner, and by more people with the skills to do so. Jon stands out in that respect. Very couragous effort, which should be brought to NIST's attention at the very least (although I can imagine how they will react to it, I still (think &) hope that Sunder & Gross will suffer from guilt and come clean at some point in time)

One thing I cannot get my head around, is how all those paper sheets managed to survive this incredible temperature onslaught. Seems like a great mystery. Has anyone ever thought about this?


I dont believe I ever said that NIST said the steel melted. (did I?)
Rather I said that the media told us that it melted. The Newsweek magazine I have, issued after 9/11 clearly says it....but not NIST.
The point I was trying to make was the mainstream media continually misrepresents and tries to influence us with scientific falsehoods.

No, you didn't say NIST said the steel melted

You clearly said the media at first said the steel melted and that is what caused the collapse.

A little later people like Thomas Eagar showed that the fire temperatures were incapable of melting steel. So later NIST stated in their FAQs that the steel didn't melt and that the fires only weakened it.

The whole problem for NIST here is that many people witnessed molten iron and steel in the rubble and it was caught on video coming out of the northeast corner of WTC 2 minutes before its collapse. A fact which NIST has been loathe to fully explain, to the point of John Gross denying the presence of molten iron and steel in the rubble.

In the end it would seem that those who said that steel melted and that it most probably contributed to the collapses were correct on those points. What they weren't right about is saying fires caused the steel to melt.

The FB and sound bite media age is having an affect on many...

...so often now I notice that people are doing more than one thing at once and not reading or listening properly.

I sent out an e-mail about some often made mistakes on the Pentagon and I had the same mistakes I pointed out sited back to me as evidence?

It's great that at least people like those contributing/editing/peer reviewing at Journal of 9/11 Studies exist or we would be in a terrible state. Why such people are not held in the highest regard by the average truther and closely listened to perplexes me?

Quality of information is at the core of whether we will prevail, but so many simply do not get it...

Kind regards John

Thank you!

Jon, that was a very well organized experiment. Thank you for your work. History will record you as one of the many true patriots who have worked to expose the horrible truth of 9/11. Well done!

here is an idea ! lets do this where ever he goes!

who wants to join with me this sunday 11-14-2010,

I will have at least 200 9-11 truth DVD's and hope that some of the people
going to the Miami Book Fair will take a look at the movies on the DVD.
We will have to be on I-95 from the wpb area no later than 11:00 am get there
and be set up by 1:00 pm somewhere in the vicinity of the book fair, by 4:00 pm
at the latest we will be back on I-95 heading home.....so who wants to join me?

Inaugural Afternoon with President George W. Bush
Sunday, Nov. 14, 4:00 p.m., Chapman Conference Center (Building 3, 2nd Floor, Room 3210)

3. Turn right at 6th Ave S 0.8 mi
4. Turn left to merge onto I-95 S toward Miami 59.8 mi
5. Take exit 2D on the left toward I-395/Miami Beach 0.8 mi
6. Take exit 2B toward US-1/Biscayne Blvd/Arenas/Pac 0.2 mi
7. Keep right at the fork, follow signs for NE 2nd Ave and merge onto NE 2nd Ave
Destination will be on the right 0.6 mi

Miami Book Fair International
300 NE 2nd Ave # 5501Miami, FL 33132-2204

Remarkably informative


In case you run out of experiments to do

I would like to know what happens when the leading edge of an airplane wing strikes an aluminum light pole at 500 miles per hour. I wonder if there is a way to simulate that.

Another thing I am wondering about, is how long it would take and how many calories would have to be expended for a strong man with an 8 pound sledge hammer to reduce a 10 foot by 10 foot by 4 inches slab of concrete to dust. Since each floor of the towers was about an acre 44,000 square feet of 4 inch concrete, that would require about 440 men, each working a 10 foot square slab. Multiply that times 100 floors, and that would be 44,000 men.

I am just guessing, But I think it would take about a week for a strong man to reduce the entire 10 x 10 x 4 inch slab of concrete to dust. (I don't mean small chunks - I mean to dust).

Anyway - my musings aside - thanks for the great work you are doing. I hope it inspires physics teachers in high schools and colleges all around the world to follow your example and actually DO experiments.

Yes I'd like to see that too

Those two cases you mentioned.

And why not also build a simple steel construction, heat all columns on one floor up to 600 degrees Celsius, then overload the structure until something starts to bend (hey who knows, maybe it'll suddenly lose all strength and come down at near freefall acc.). Then do the same when heating it to 700, 800, 900 degrees Celsius. Just to show that steel structures on fire do not behave as NIST assumes they do.
I know NIST tested a floorassembly (which refuted their own predictions of course, so they had to skip those results), but anyway. Or could it be that scale comes into play here?

I'll see if I can bring this subject to the attention of all the physicsteachers (and also the chemistryteachers of course) from my own highschool.

Funny how some people in the truth movemen don't want to know

what happens when the leading edge of an airplane wing strikes an aluminum light pole at 500 miles per hour.
I knew that my post would get minus votes because there are a fair number of readers of this blog who are terrified of anything relating to the Pentagon - and just want it to go away.

What is the objection to doing an experiment to find out what happens when the leading edge of an airplane wing strikes an aluminum light pole at 500 miles per hour?

How about a coherent answer, rather than just a minus vote? It is really pathetic when people seeking the truth run away from the idea of actually doing a scientific test. Isn't that exactly what Shyam Sunder and NIST did in refusing to test for explosives?


sorry im on reserve battery power- zmzmzm jus check this out i think its v v valid

No objection.

"What is the objection to doing an experiment to find out what happens when the leading edge of an airplane wing strikes an aluminum light pole at 500 miles per hour?"

There is no objection from me. I think it would make a good experiment.

The light poles

were specifically designed to snap off (be "frangible") in the case of impact either by a fast moving plane or an automobile. That's why according to FAA regulations, light poles within 250 feet of a runway must conform to this specific. The engineering knowledge gained from this research has been applied to the production of light poles and light pole bases in general.

What happened at the Pentagon was that a fast moving plane both dented/fractured the poles at mid height or above and simultaneously snapped off the base. The dent/fracture acted as the point of force application, the pole as the arm, and the base as the fulcrum.

You can wave your arms and demand all sorts of experiments and tests, and then because none of us have a 757 handy to fly into some light poles, we are somehow "terrified of anything relating to the Pentagon - and just want it to go away."


I'm simply of the opinion

that no 9/11 experiments should be discouraged. If someone wants to do them, go for it. We can only learn more.


I don't object to experiments at all. But I do object to a tactic that I would describe as "moving the lamp posts". Nobody can arrange a 757 to replicate flying it into some light poles, therefore this "experiment" can repeatedly be demanded without the actual expectancy of fulfillment. The demand for such an experiment isn't sincere but merely a rhetorical device.

Moreover, the burden of proof is shifted: the burden of proof actually lies with those making the claim that the light poles were staged.

For reference, this is an experiment conducted by the FAA in 1964 with a DC 7. Note that the incoming speed is different, the plane is different and has propeller engines, the plane is scraping the ground, and the poles are wooden and anchored firmly to the ground.

They conclude with: "The basic wing structure remains intact". Now, this doesn't need to happen. Poles can severely damage wings, without question. The damage done to the pole and wing depends on:

  • The type of aircraft
  • The composition of the wing material
  • The speed of the aircraft
  • The leverage effect (function of impact height on the pole)
  • The construction of the pole (Is it designed to be frangible?)
  • Collision dynamics: how soon does the pole snap at the base, lowering resistance at the point of force application?

And.. who knows what else.

This is complex, highly specialized subject material. Several people, such as Albert Hemphill, saw the plane hit the light poles. According to CIT, they all "deduced" it. Of course they did.... otherwise they'd spoil your entire theory. But should they say the plane flew "North of Citgo", their witness accounts are flawless....up to the point where they say it hit the Pentagon.. then they're deducing again.


...obviously a hard wood telegraph pole is far superior in strength than the light weight modern style seen at the Pentagon, for this is the reason they have changed to this type.

This should make people realize that what we see at the Pentagon is plausible!

Regards John

You're welcome

The pole does cut off the outer portion of the wing...which is what what we're actually interested in, in terms of what happened at the Pentagon. The inner portion is damaged but takes out the pole. There is also a leverage effect there, although it might not have been decisive in the FAA test. Still, not only should it matter at what height the pole is impacted but at what distance from the hull the wing is impacted. Obviously the wing is also less massive moving outwards.

I believe no planers used to use this video to try to make the case that "aluminum cannot penetrate steel". Of course, anything can penetrate steel, it depends on the kinetic energy. That's how shaped charges work: air penetrates steel. Other sources no planers would use were photos and videos of bird strikes. The logic: if a bird can damage an airplane: how can an airplane damage the steel columns of the World Trade Center? Somehow the WTC impact was expected to be like a bus driving into a wall. These fundamental misconceptions have been reanimated in the Pentagon no plane crash theory. CIT supporters will argue that it's different this time, and their arguments unlike NPT actually have merit this time around, but they do not. They're stepping into the exact same pitfalls.

There is no way we can borrow a 757 to smash into a Pentagon light pole replica, but based on the video above we can make an educated guess: where the heavy, anchored wooded pole rips off the outer portion and gets smashed by the inner portion of a DC 7 wing (flying at a slower speed than the Pentagon 757), the Pentagon 757 would impact the light poles, this would do some damage to the wings but not catastrophic, the light poles would probably dent or fracture and break away from their bases, as they were designed to do. It's not called a "breakaway base" for nothing.

In the simulation cited by Douglas Hilton above (which isn't perfect either, but it's a good start), ingestion of light post debris is suggested to have caused the engine to start smoking, creating the smoke trail seen in the fab five frames. It's clear the plane and its wings and engines didn't reach the Pentagon facade unscathed.


for DC7 vid from me too

More Tests of Dust Samples

Right, Mekt_Ranzz. And while we're at it we should strive to learn even more about the dust. There is overwhelming evidence for thermitic materials, but we still don't know whether or not conventional explosives were used because we have never tested for them!

Even Neils Harrit believes that conventional explosives were used in addition to the nanothermite. Since we have numerous WTC dust samples at our disposal, we should test them further.

Additional forensic evidence only strengthens our case. We could test for an array of conventional explosives, including petn (det cord) to see what comes up. This could be done by an independent lab and produce a lab result in addition to our own published papers. A positive would be huge.

A negative finding would not in any way threaten the nanothermite. That stands regardless. I would like to find out as much as possible about the dust. I can understand NIST not running these tests, but not us.
We should not presume what is or is not there. We should follow the scientific method and seek the fullest possible truth.

*Great experiment, Jon.

They keep getting better


You are a gentleman, a scholar, a patriot, a genius, a master sarcasmist and a great video producer/narrator. You educate and enlighten with simple yet compelling experiments. Then explain their meaning and significance in common language that almost anyone can understand.

I raise my glass to you. This video is excellent!


Thank you, Jon!

The experiments in your video are just the kind I've been hoping someone would someday soon perform. For years I've wondered if thermite and/or thermate could in any practical way cut steel beams. Looks like you've proven thermate can.

I have a few questions though.

Were the bolt cutters secured or were they just positioned and ignited?

Regarding the last experiment you performed, have you considered narrowing the width of your four-sided box cutter to fit only as much thermate as required? With no excess space, the thermate thrust would no doubt be that much more directionally powerful and effective.

I agree with Dr. Jones that potassium permanganate should be used instead of barium nitrate. Besides not being needed for the thermitic reaction to work well, barium nitrate is insidiously toxic.

In your video, you said you could not obtain nano -thermite or -thermate. What about synthesizing your own? The materials for it are also readily available (except the nano-aluminum) and the process for creating sol-gel nano-thermite, at least on paper, appears to be quite easy and, with proper precautions, generally safe.

The creation of sol gel iron oxide appears to be a process performed routinely within aerogel manufacturing communities. All that is needed before gelation is the addition of the proper amount of powered aluminum followed by drying to form a nanocomposite mixture of nano-iron oxide and aluminum (which would almost certainly be a weaker form of nano-thermite but stronger than conventional thermite). As for the addition of sulfur and potassium permanganate in this reaction, I'm not sure if either would react with any of the propylene oxide that may remain from the nano-thermite synthesis (some simple experiments could quickly and easily resolve this issue).

Here is the link describing in detail the sol-gel iron oxide synthesis (I would use iron chloride hexahydrate, which is very common, in place of the iron nitrate nonahydrate, and keep everything else the same):

Iron Oxide Aerogels

If you would like more information about this process, which I've studied extensively, I would be happy to help.

Again, thank you for this fantastic, well-made, and informative video.

response to Mekt_Ranzz

The bolt cutter was clamped to that steel angle with ordinary C Clamps. In all cases (I think...except the clay roof tiles/internal box cutter) I either bolted or clamped the containers. That segmented box cutter , where I got my first real "pressure pulse" actually snapped the bottom bolt, broke welds and blew open my box cutter.
Due to time limitations I didn't put a lot of stuff in the video that I could have to better explain the effects of each experiment.

As for the last experiment, I really wanted more of a burn, and for health reasons (I can only run so fast) wanted to avoid "pressure pulses". Although it gets the blood flowing, so much energy is wasted when they blow rather than burn. So, the way to get a burn rather than a blow is to have the thermate NOT constrained too much.

Finding that balance is not easy, and I understand that there are all sorts of formulas for nozzle configuration, of which I know nothing of. So, with all that said, the problem with my internal box cutter is that the milled slots were too small for the volume of thermate. I was concerned with that problem so I I drove in steel wedges to open the slots up some before the experiment. Evidently I should have opened them up more.

one more thing

The four thermitic bolt "blasters" (rather than my thermitic bolt "cutter".....folks with mental issues have pet names for their scrap steel), inside the box column were not bolted or clamped. Rather I just put a concrete block on top (inside) and also placed that 3/4" plate on top of the "WTC" box column. The concrete block blew upward, blowing of that steel plate, as seen in the video.

If you want to yank NatGeo's chain.....

You can go to the Contact us page on their website and leave a Question, Compliment, Complaint or Suggestion.

I left them 2 suggestions.

Suggestion #1:
I suggest that you contact the "experts" you hired to demonstrate that thermite could not cut through steel and ask for a refund of whatever fees you were charged for their "expert" opinions and assistance in making the program "9/11: Science and Conspiracy."

See why here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=player_embedded

After watching this recently released video on Youtube, it is quite apparent your "experts" were wrong and you and your viewers were consequently lead astray. Thermite, once a couple of common, easily available substances are mixed with it, can quite easily cut through steel beams such as were found in the WTC buildings.

Suggestion #2:
Apologize to the public for broadcasting misleading information to your millions of viewers around the globe and reshoot and rebroadcast that segment on thermite and this time hire some real experts who know what they are talking about with regards to thermite and how to properly set up a scientific experiment for a demonstration of the destructive power of thermite. Might I suggest the engineer who produced the video linked above, Jonathan Cole, and the scientists Niels Harrit and Steven Jones as well qualified individuals who might be willing to help you in this regard if you ask them nicely.

I know how important it must be to Rupert Murdoch and National Geographic to stand firmly for the scientific method in your reporting. (After all the program in question was called "9/11 Science and Conspiracy".) Therefore I am sure you will waste no time in informing your viewers that the information you previously broadcast in your program "9/11: Science and Conspiracy" concerning thermite and its inability to cut through steel was clearly wrong, and your supposed "experts" appear to have been lacking in scientific knowledge about the use of thermite as an incendiary. I should think a prestigious and influential channel such as yourself would also want to do your best to mitigate the damage caused by broadcasting misleading and incorrect scientific information by showing to your viewers that, as demonstrated in the video above, thermite can quite easily be configured to cut through steel.



Wonderful video

This should be disseminated as widely as possible.

It is significant

It is significant that NIST did not conduct any experiment to test if its explanation for the liquid flowing from the south tower in the seconds before its collapse was accurate. Yet this experimental verification was easily achieved with little financial means. Also, NIST has refused to test the dust of World Trade Center for thermite, super-thermite, or any other accelerant or explosive.

These are two facts that could be the basis of a lawsuit against the NIST, which could be accused of trying to protect the perpetrators of explosive controlled demolition of WTC buildings, by not doing what it should have done.


I'd like to comment on another aspect of this fine experiment. Notice the sound of the burning thermate? Although Jon suggests that it may have been used because it is relatively quiet when it burns, there is actually quite a loud sound, even when the burning is not nterspersed with pulses and explosive sounds. Now imagine the sound of a huge amount of this stuff burning at the same time within the perimeter columns, which would amplify the sound. I have long wondered whether this is the sound people in the streets heard several seconds before the Towers started to come down. Many said they thought a third plane was approaching--there was a tremendous roar (also described as a rumble). For a list of these witness accounts, see Appendix D in this article:


Here's an example of a witness statement:

“That's when we heard that sound, again, and I swear it sounded like another plane coming in, just that rumbling noise, that steadily -- that continuous rumbling that was getting louder and louder, and I think the last words I had were, oh, God not another one.”

Excellent Video

Jon, I'm wondering if you and the experiments you've conducted are going to be included in the new AE911truth documentary, "9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out?"

I hope so....

Funny Hilter video too.

Mr. Cole,

As others have said, great video. I also wanted to thank you for your funny video of Hitler's reaction to the 9/11 Truth movement's successes. We can all use a good laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbRc1BhXjvA



I have to post this on my Facebook wall.

I got severe pain in my abdomen

while watching that Hitler vid, absolutely hilarious indeed! Thanx for posting it.

Hi Jon

Great job .... I read another post and saw the word sulfur. Were you adding any for your experiments ? That might just be your key. the right ratio and very little would be necessary to do the job.


Yes, I added sulfur to the thermite, (making thermate) for these experiments. Surprisingly (to me at least) the % of sulfur is not that hgh in the mix...like 2% or so.

I suspect that I could also do considerable damage with small amounts of thermite, (no sulfur) if focused and configured correctly...not sure. But it has to be focused, or not much will happen, which is exactly what N.G. and Mythbusters didn't do...in an attempt to fool us.

But I think the wisdom of our former President will ultimately prevail:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

thank you! Posted on my facebook

I rarely post 911 truth on my FB.. But I posted this on my facebook page just now.

Brilliant stuff Jon Cole. You even got a response from Steven Jones in here.

Keep up the amazing work.

Info on cutting devices

Great work Jon--well done video too.
Upon seeing this video, I was reminded about a paper I saved years ago (2007) concerning "Linear Thermitic Cutting Devices". It can still be found here:


These devices are from patent applications. They address some of the problems you had, by using ceramic materials to control and direct the plasma stream for most effective cutting action. I just thought it might be helpful.

Hey, Mr. Cole.

I just watched your video. Beautiful. Thanks.


this was a great

this was a great demonstration man, I recommend for anyone watching this to actually go to the youtube site and view the video. Please rate it and such to help spread the word. I also recommend that you go there and rate down the top comments. There are a group of ignorant individuals who haven't posted anything to the discussion. Instead they are just name calling and bashing. Though most are intelligent enough to see how ridiculous these people are it is necessary to help promote the video by rating down these unintelligible comments.

To Jon Cole

Jon, Thanks, You're one of my heroes in the search for 9/11 truth.

Please keep telling it, because the truth will prevail..