Experiments with nanothermite DK1Ryan (Kevin)

Experiments with nanothermite


Uploaded by DK1Ryan on Jul 24, 2011

Scientific evidence for thermitic materials at the World Trade Center is discussed, and an experiment in production and ignition of nanothermite is performed.

Would Like Seeing Effects Upon Loaded Steel

Would be interesting to see how loaded structural steel coated with this kind of nano-thermite performs during a reaction. WTC structural steel was scheduled for treatment of rust 9 months before 9/11. Such treatment probably was supposed to involve the application of corrosion control materials "painted" onto the steel. Could enough nano-thermite "painted" onto loaded structural steel create enough heat or erosion to cause failure?

WPI also claimed an interest in further experiments with structural steel to determine how WTC samples they studied became so eroded. Not sure if these experiments were ever performed.

See effects before conjecture

Frankly, the repeated conjecture by Kevin Ryan, and others (including in the journal paper), that nanothermite that was PAINTED on could have caused any serious damage strains credulity. I hope Kevin performs such an experiment with structural steel, and if not, stops alluding to this highly improbable (being painted on that is) use of nanothermite.

Wouldn't Reports Of Molten Flows Suggest Non-Explosive Tuning?

While there is evidence that nano-thermite can be explosive, the observed and reported flows of WTC molten material suggest a non-explosive "tuning" of at least some apparently present nano-thermite.

Explosive destruction of steel can lead to structural failure. Over-heating steel and (possibly more importantly) less durable relevent connections between steel members, can also contribute to structural failure.

not non-explosive vs. explosive nanothermite

The problem is not with explosive versus non-explosive forms of nanothermite. The problem is with the suggestion that it was PAINTED on. How thick is a layer of paint? A few millimeters? It strains credulity that a few millimeters of nanothermite could do any appreciable damage. Another problem is with claims that were made in the past that workers could have PAINTED on nanothermite and not have known they were doing so--an attempt to make the conspiracy involve less people.

Whoever put explosives in the WTC knew exactly what they were doing--it was highly engineered and planned out. I fail to see how PAINTED nanothermite could do much damage, and without any experimental evidence, it is, on the face of it, a poor conjecture.

Probably right..

The energy from the reactions has to be focused into the beams and columns somehow as Jon Cole's experiments demonstrate. It can't be just "painted on" in any old fashion. I am sure if Kevin and Jon combined their efforts we could see a very effective application of nano-thermate on steel. I still wonder how much it would take. When you see the molten metal flowing from the south tower, it looks like a very very large amount is reacting. It looks just the reactions in Jon's videos like its coming from a focused point, but hard to tell.



I agree that the assertion that the nano-thermite was painted on should be backed up. But I would also stress that it is your assumption that "painted on" means a layer of "a few millimeters". Perhaps the gel like composition allows for several centimeters when "painted on"? It will be interesting to see if any significant weakening can be achieved in this.

To Kevin Ryan: your work is truly remarkable!

WTC 2 Pre-Collapse Exterior Column Bowing Suggests Weakening

Images of WTC 2's exterior columns bowing inward during the minutes before collapse suggests structural weakening of building steel. Was this the result of the building fires or an extreme accelerant like nano-thermite in contact with building steel or important column connections?

While it is not impossible that numerous perps knowingly planted explosives throughout the towers pre-9/11, I suspect preparing the towers for covert demolition required "piggy-backing" such activity upon normal activities, such as renovation methods known to be occurring circa 9/11.

Causing structural steel to overheat and weaken via an extreme accelerant to the point of failure would be an ideal covert demolition method, because such weakening would blend with the official explanations of fire induced weakening and some evidence for such could be more easily explained away.

More experiments!

DavidS also fails to consider

DavidS also fails to consider the fact that multiple layers could be painted on, such that millimeters add up to centimeters, etc, etc. He also dismisses the idea of painted nanothermite based on zero evidence. How can he possibly know that, for example, a centimeter thick layer of nanothermite wouldn't have enough energy to substantially weaken or melt a steel column? Where are his calculations?

Frank Greening's calculation

However, this is not for nanothermite, but for conventional thermite, and Greening assumes a rather thin layer.


Calculation of the Heating Effect of a Thermite Coating on a Steel Column:

The thermite reaction of interest is Fe2O3 + 2Al = Al2O3 + 2Fe

The energy released by 1 kg of a stoichiometric mixture of ferric oxide and aluminium undergoing this thermite reaction is 3988 kJ/kg.

Consider a 100-micron layer of this mixture coated on a steel column on an upper floor of one of the Twin Towers.

For simplicity we shall assume the coated surfaces are on all four sides of a box column that is 20 cm wide spanning one 3.7-meter high floor. Thus we have a total surface area per column of 3.7 x 0.2 x 4 = 2.96 m^2. (We could also consider an equivalent wide-flange column)

The volume of our 100-micron coating is then = 2.96 x 100 x 10^-6 m^3 = 296 x 10^-6 m^3

The density of the thermite mixture is assumed to be ~ 4500 kg/m^3, so the mass of our thermite coating per one floor column length is = 4500 kg/m^3 x 296 x 10^-6 = 1.332 kg

Using the 3988 kJ/kg heat release of the thermite reaction we have a total heat release per one floor column length of 1.332 kg x 3988 kJ/kg = 5312 kJ.

Next we need to calculate the mass of steel that was exposed to this 5312 kJ of heat energy.

Column specifications for the upper floors of WTC 1 indicate the typical mass of structural steel per column per floor was about 1500 kg.

The heat capacity of steel is 0.45 kJ/kg so 1 kg of steel requires 0.45 kJ to be heated by 1 deg C.

Therefore 1500 kg requires 675 kJ.

The heat released by our 200-micron layer of thermite is 5312 kJ. Thus the expected temperature increase is (5312/675) x 1 deg C, or about 8 deg C.


So how much kJ/kg will 1 kg of nanothermite produce? I suppose the ATM paper's DSC measurement might provide a clue. I don't know. Don't feel like pursuing that right now, because I have a mild headache.


of too simplistic calculations like this one. One inaccurate "easy to spot" assumption made here by Frank is that he assumes uniform gradual heating of the whole beam. This is clearly incorrect as the thermite is only on the outer layer and the reaction occurs rather fast. The calculation done by Frank seems to too simple and does not model the actual physical situation accurately enough.

Who knows perhaps there are several ways of tweaking this as to produce the desired outcome.

But needless to say, the idea that painted on nano-thermite can significantly weaken the beams clearly needs to be backed up experimentally. I do not have a hard opinion as of yet apart that it seems to be one of many possibilities. More data is needed here.


Assume the same setup (Thermite instead of nanothermite, same layer thickness), could you explain how the temperature would change if the reaction would hypothetically occur much faster?

How would the calculation and the outcome change? Need some education on this. Thanks.


The point I'm making is not whether it is thermite, thermate, or nanothermite.

That the calculation is inadequate is obvious from the fact that after the reaction of be it either thermite, thermate, or nanothermite, there is no single temperature of the steel beam. In fact, the outer layers would be very hot and perhaps partly melted while the inner core would immediately after the reaction not be that hot. Steel has very high thermal conductivity so it would not take long before the core would also be heated.

Importantly, Frank is calculating a *single* temperature. What could this single temperature refer to in this particular case? One answer is this: if this steel beam would not melt and would be thermally isolated then after some time (perhaps 5-10min) the steel beam would have equal temperature throughout the body. This temperature would be what Frank calculated but the relevance of this calculation is not clear.

That said, if I had to bet I would think that the nano-thermite would have been used in a more systematic fashion than simple painted on. But again, it is hard to speculate in a vacuum!


Okay. Well, I was trying to picture what the calculations would look like if the reaction occurred much faster. I'm wondering what the actual benefits of nanothermite vis-a-vis normal thermite would be in terms of heat transfer.

I don't see any heat transfer differences

The major difference between nano and regular micro-sized powder thermite is in the reaction rate due to the greater surface area to mass ratio of the nano-thermite powder and that difference is in the milliseconds if not microseconds.

The heating and cooling process doesn't occur fast enough for milliseconds to make a difference in the heat transfer through a steel beam and any subsequent structural effects of the heating.

In my opinion the real advantage of nano-thermite over regular micro-sized powder thermite, concerning it's use in a demolition, is that it can do pressure-volume work with organics mixed in to develop a gas as Kevin explained. Due to the quick reaction rate it can easily develop a gas pressure with a velocity close to that of a high powered rifle projectile (about 3,000 ft./s). This gas pressure would allow it to propel the hot material through a cut. High explosives develop extremely high gas pressure velocities of 20,000 to 27,000 ft./s and pressures of around 3 million psi which are necessary to shatter their way through a cut, whereas nano-thermite can melt the steel and the gas pressure produced by the organics is more than enough to propel the melting agent through the cut, with much less noise than a high explosive.

The reaction rate and subsequent gas velocity are also tailorable by varying the size of the thermite particles. The smaller the particles, the faster the reaction and greater the gas velocity.

However, I don't believe painting on nano-thermite would accomplish the above. For that purpose it would have to be used in a device which focused the hot material and energy due to it's reaction on a small area to effect a cut. I do believe it could have been painted on columns and beams to exacerbate the fires, especially with it igniting at 430 degrees C. It would have had to be contained in a protective device to keep it from prematurely igniting it if it was used for demolition purposes in areas with fires.

Thanks very interesting!

What made that steel shoot out at such speeds? Given the observed large ejection speeds, there was probably very powerful explosions going off as well that must have created a lot of noise, no?

Comparing times

Here are some thoughts:

The relevant problem here is of course to determine how much weakening that can be accomplished with painted on nano-thermite or ordinary thermite. We are not interested in the final temperature. So Frank is not addressing the right problem.

In this case damage is achieved by melting. So if the reaction is super slow, or in physics terms adiabatic, then no damage will be done at all. This is the case Frank was considering. If the reaction speed is faster than the typical time scale at which heat disperse in the steel beam, then the outer layers would absorb a lot of heat before it could be dispersed to the interior. This could lead to melting of the outer layers and therefore some damage.

I suspect that if the thermite or nano-thermite was simply painted on only a fraction of the heat produced in the reaction would actually go to heating the steel beam. The rest probably would end up elsewhere.

A realistic physical model would be very complex and most likely you'd have to resort to numerical methods.

I think you have got it right Haze

It may seem counter-intuitive, but the faster the reaction of a painted-on pyrotechnic material, the less chance it will have of causing structural failure. This is contrary to the effect of confined pyrotechnic material. If confined, a higher speed will aid cutting.

If unconfined, a slower reaction time will allow more heat to be conducted into the steel before the event is over. An unconfined reaction would throw the reacting material off the steel in microseconds and conduction would cease. At this moment the contact surface will be very hot, perhaps molten. If molten it will run away or perhaps be blown away by the expanding gases, before much heat can penetrate into the steel structure.

I am reminded of the pieces of steel reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report. There were holes and thinning of the steel, showing sharp edges. The only way you can get a thin sharp edge on steel without a grinder is to heat one side of it so fast it melts and blows away before the rest of the beam gets hot enough to melt. That would take a pretty high speed pyrotechnic, such as nanothermite. As the steel was pretty thick to begin with, and some was completely missing, I think some degree of confinement was present. It wasn't just painted on.

Thanks Frank!

I've also heard the idea that the nano-thermite could have been used as "matches". Do you have any thoughts on that? Can it account for the shear volume of nano-thermite found in the dust?


I doubt it. I think the most plausible explanation is that a substantial quantity of nanothermite was used directly for demolition and the reason that it was chosen is that it was "tailorable", as stated in the laboratory literature. We know from Jon Cole's experiments that even thermite can cut steel if suitably confined. It is likely that a form of nanothermite was manufactured which was designed to be highly effective in cutter charges without producing the loud crack associated with high explosives. And it wasn't just the large volume of red chips found in the dust; it was also the even larger volume of microspheres, largely iron, that informed us that a thermitic reaction was involved. This could have come from either nanothermite, thermite or thermate, but nothing else. The flow of molten metal from the south tower looked more like thermite than nanothermite. The evidence is strong that both were involved.

Another point

as I see it, is that if you want to bring down a big building in a symmetric controlled fashion you need to employ high precision methods to sever the steel beams. The steel beams must be cut at a precise moment. I do not see that painted on nano-thermite can ensure that the steel beam is cut at a specific moment.

The molten steel pouring out of the towers could either be the result of a deliberate weakening of the steel beams using thermite or perhaps it was entirely unwanted and set off by of the office fires.

thermite evidence

Office fires cannot possibly melt steel so a chemical reaction with oxidizer and fuel must be involved. Thermite fits the bill for molten metal. Even NIST reported that a white hot spot was observed on the side of the South Tower a few minutes before the metal was observed pouring out. They pointed out that white heat indicated a metal was burning, but didn't suggest what it might have been. Thermite fits the bill for burning metal and white heat.


What I meant was that the thermitic reaction (which clearly occurred) could have been either deliberate or not.

I did not know about the NIST report of a white hot spot. Very interesting! Do you have the exact reference?

NIST reports white hot area

Haze, this subject is discussed in this paper:

There you can see NIST's photo showing the white spot and read their quote:

“An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out .…. The brightness of the flame, along with the white smoke, suggests that some type of metal is burning."
Source: NCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C Fig. 9-44. p. 344.55


One argument against the "painted on" theory is that it seems to be a rather inefficient use of nano-thermite. If the nano-thermite is just painted on the energy produced in the reaction will not all go to melt and weaken the steel. Much if not most will simply be wasted and not contribute to the weakening. This is essentially what Cole demonstrated in his thermate experiments: you need to focus to a small spot the thermate reaction in order for it to melt the steel.

Actually, I didn't fail to

Actually, I didn't fail to consider multiple layers. Its just that such a scenario is even MORE incredulous. First, it would require waiting for the solvent to dry, and then reapply another coat. Repeating this procedure multiple times. And this would have to be done all over the building. And even then, with a centimeter or so, it still is unlikely to cause serious damage. As pointed out by others, Jon Cole's experiments, although for the cause of regular thermate, demonstrate that the thermate needs to be focused. Just as linear shaped charges need to be focused. I'm not the one making the very poor conjecture that nanothermite was painted on. The onus is on those who claim that painted nanothermite could do any appreciable damage to demonstrate it experimentally. And given that Kevin Ryan is capable of manufacturing the nanothermite, it wouldn't be difficult to apply it to structural steel and see what happens.

Perhaps Unbelievable But Not Impossible

"Such a scenario is even MORE incredulous. First, it would require waiting for the solvent to dry, and then reapply another coat. Repeating this procedure multiple times. And this would have to be done all over the building. And even then, with a centimeter or so, it still is unlikely to cause serious damage."

Why would the application of multiple coats be difficult to believe?

As for such coats needing to be applied throughout the buildings, not necessarily. But in any event, the December, 2000 Merritt/Harris WTC property assessment called for rust treatment of the major support columns within the elevator shafts, which likely involved extensive industrial "painting" application methods.

How can one be certain that a centimeter thick coat of nano-scale energetic incendiaries would be insufficient to cause loaded steel to fail under severe heat?

Perhaps it is time for interested parties to invest in the services of a private investigator who can locate the contractors who may have performed any "painting" related duties (or any work in fact) within the WTC elevator shafts pre-9/11 so that their accounts can be noted.

Multiple layers

Having worked in the building trades for over 25 years (including in highrises), I have no problem believing that multiple coats could have been sprayed on (perhaps in some kind of foam that cures overnight?).

I also have no problem believing that the crews doing this thought they were applying some new kind of fire protective or anti-corrosion coating.

Additionally, the explosive sounds reported by many first responders, reporters and others indicate to me that some kind of high explosives were also employed.

Finally, basic Newtonian physics give us the inescapable conclusion that additional energy was required to bring the 3 buildings down in the manner observed and additional forensic analysis will undoubtedly expose exactly what produced that additional energy.

The bottom line remains the need for a complete, thorough and transparent investigation with subpoena power by competent, well funded investigators.

The truth shall set us free and sometimes the truth is incredible.

Love is the only way forward and love is the most incredible power in the cosmos.

"painted" nanothermite

In addition to whatever other explosives and/or incendiaries may have been present, there could also have been films of nanothermite. One possibility that has been conjectured regarding this is that the nanothermite discovered as chips was part of a thin layer applied as some form of a fuse, that is, in order to set in motion other explosive and/or incendiary processes.

I really enjoyed seeing this. Cool.

Kevin, Thanks for the Chemistry class!

An aside mention to nano-thermite...

I love seeing all the research which Kevin has done on the "connections".

I'm wondering where I went wrong

I thought nanothermite was solid, layered, uniform particles, like what would have to be in a sheet. In a "honeycomb structure".

Is the gelled stuff above the same stuff that would cut the steel columns?

I didn't think we had the technology to create what came out of Lawrence Livermore.


Btw: Awesome work! (I really liked the moment it "went up")

Very Nice Experiment

This was like watching an adult version of Mr. Science. On the subject of explosives, I don't think I have ever once heard the word brisance mentioned in regards to 9/11. I have seen some speculation as to the available force in relation to time available for a rapid fall versus surplus energy left to do destructive work. Yet, I don't think I have ever seen any quantitative speculation on how much extra energy would have to be added to explain the phenomenon that we all have seen, particularly in regards to the two towers and how much brisance would be required and, by logical extension, what materials exist to produce that force.
Regarding things in general: a Google search, at least on my computer, for 9/11 truth will not pull up 9/11 Blogger, i.e. this site. I would also like to say, just in passing, that the restrictions I agreed to to get an account here and flame wars I have seen on this site really need to be addressed and, by agreement, I won't mention what they are. But consider this, please: when working on the atomic bomb (not the H-Bomb) Edward Teller put forth one scheme after another that were all rejected. He also stated that the atomic bomb might set the atmosphere on fire. I think that no one, especially those that live in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, would discount the existence of the atom bomb out of hand because of some of Teller's crazier notions. As far as gaining "audience" one has to consider all of the noise we live in and what passes for "culture" in this society as the obstacle. When guests would appear on Johnny Carson they would always say that they were involved in the "legitimate theater," to distance themselves from productions like "Cats" or "Phantom of the Opera;" now you don't hear those kind of distinctions and at the risk of being classist and elitist it is because the U.S. has devolved into a low brow society. So your competition is: "Dancing With the Stars." "The Bachelor," "The WWF," (sorry Jesse) "Dukes of Hazzard," "Tractor Pulls," "Bigfoot Trucks," "Fox News," and a plethora of other anti-intellectual absurdities that are ubiquitous in this country. Just sayin'.


Hi Peter,

This is a topic which has been addressed. A very troubleseome fellow by the name of Mark T Hightower has accused the 9/11 Truth Movement of overselling nanothermite. He points out that the flame propagation rate in nanothermite is much lower than in typical high explosives and says it should not be called a high explosive. It has been pointed out to him that the paper "Active Thermitic Materials...", in which the discovery of nanothermite particles in the WTC dust is reported and its behaviour described, does not contain the words "high explosive". It contains the word "explosive". This word is used in the many papers describing nanothermite produced by military research laboratories, so must be regarded as acceptable. Perhaps there are people who are calling nanothermite a high explosive but it is not the authors of the seminal paper. Nevertheless Hightower continues to berate us all for overselling nanothermite.

Jon Cole has provided us with some very useful information based on his own experiments. He has shown that it is possible to cut a steel beam with ordinary thermite, not nanothermite, if it is properly confined. The flame propagation rate of thermite is slow and it is never described as an "explosive".

Apparently there is no need to worry that the brisance of nanothermite might be insufficient.

Brisance Again

Hey Frank

Thank you for your response, I appreciate it but I am still confused. What I observe in the destruction of the Twin Towers is something very similar to mastication. I am using that analogy for a reason which I will get to later. What I see, as the buildings come down beside their deliberate and sudden downward collapse, is an endless Niagara like cataract of ejecta and detritus which is comprised of, to my way of thinking, the whole building. It has been widely speculated that this is a cloud of gypsum but were it so, I wish I had gone into the sheet rock business long ago. I have seen Mr. Cole's experiment for cutting steel and I find them to be nothing short of elegant; they well surpass Feynman's conditions for what a good experiment should be. Really, enough can't be said about Jon Cole's work; it is ambitious and motivated. Wouldn't it be nice to have a government with the same level of responsibility? I have no doubt about thermite's ability to cut the steel; but is that necessary and sufficient to produce the phenomena seen in the fall of the Towers? Now for the mastication analogy. My brother, while casting around for a Master's Thesis in Orthodontics, was bouncing some ideas off of my father. My father had a Bachelor of Naval Science which, to my way of thinking, is comprised of some Shakespeare and naval gun trajectory theorems. My brother proposed that he map the forces evoked by a cow chewing its cud, to which my father replied: "too many variables." So, from what I can tell, the observed conditions on 9/11 contain too many variables because, like the mastication process, there are more forces than just downward linear forces but forces in all directions as well.

avoiding excessive variables

Peter, I think you can overcome the problem of excessive variables by breaking the study into sections. The videos, at the outset, prove Bazant's pile driver theory wrong. What do we see at the outset? Some puffs of dust and the Antenna and roof start to move down at uniform acceleration. If we look below the impact region we see nothing moving. The lower portion is not being hammered, it is not shrinking, so the only conclusion possible is that the top block, the so called hammer, is shrinking. How can it shrink when there is no hammer above it to hit it? Only explosive demolition can account for it.

When the top "block" has shrunk to half its height the lower, undamged, unheated portion starts to move down from the top. Again we see puffs of dust as this starts. Again the acceleration is constant and the same as before. How can this be if it is the result of wild random events? The only reasonable explanation is that the lower portion, just like the upper portion, was destroyed be a series of explosive demolitions, proceeding downward in a beautifully timed sequence. What was the timing of the sequence? Just a bit less than free fall. This enabled the debris to get ahead of the explosive demolition layers and hide them. It worked pretty well except for the first few.

Every section you look at can be explained by the very simple theory of sequencial explosive demolition. It is confirmed by the finding of pyrotechnic material in the dust. Don't be put off by the apparent complexity of the event as a whole.

You ask: "I have no doubt about thermite's ability to cut the steel; but is that necessary and sufficient to produce the phenomena seen in the fall of the Towers?" You should note that the authors of the "Active Thermitic Materials..." never say that nanothermite is sufficient. We say it was present in very substantial quantities and had no right to be there at all. We point out that nanothermite is reported in the literature as capable of demolition.

If you look at the glass

you can see there is some deposit of mist before the burning. Is this Aluminum Oxide? Or other gas?

Comparison to Lawrence Livermore nanothermite?

Having seen how a form of nanothermite can be made relatively cheaply using readily available materials, it would be valuable to find out the differences between Kevin Ryan's nanothermite compared to the "big budget variety" produced at Lawrence Livermore using industrial processes and state of the art laboratory equipment. For example, is the aluminum powder that Ryan used of a similar particulate size to the LL variety? Presumably, the smaller the particles, the faster the reaction, and the more powerful the explosive properties.

A very good point when

A very good point when bearing in mind that nano thermite can be tweaked for different purposes by adding different elements at the molecular level.
Eg the effects that addition of sulfer would be in lowering the melting point of the steel, or if more explosive forms of nano thermite could be produced by the addition of organic molecules / carbon to produce more gas and thus become more explosive / do pressure work.

Thermitic Materials Explain the Evidence

While we don't know every detail about how the nanothermite was applied, we do know that it was found in the WTC dust and that thermitic materials can account for all of the evidence/phenomena at GZ.

*Molten metal
*Iron-rich microspheres
*Red/Gray chips
*Pulverized concrete
*Long-burning fires
*'Toasted cars'
*Low sound volume

Thermite/Thermate are incendiaries that can account for molten metal, iron microspheres, and the long lasting fires. Thermite reactions don't require oxygen and can persist underwater. (the pile at GZ was still burning weeks later despite rains and enormous amounts of water from firefighters.)

Nanothermite accounts for the red/gray chips, and if tuned as a high explosive could account for the pulverized concrete. And we know that nanothermite can be a high explosive.
It might also explain the so-called 'toasted cars' via the hot gas produced as evidenced in this experiment.

Contrast this with the fact that no evidence for conventional explosives has been found. Furthermore conventionals would not account for much of the forensic evidence and would produce much higher sound levels of destruction. Nano could be tuned to produce less sound and the technology allows for wireless detonation.

DEWs don't account for - and even deny - the forensic evidence found. This is unfounded and unscientific and rightly rejected. The bottom line is "what accounts for ALL of the evidence?" When we follow the forensics, we find a clean sweep for thermitic demolition.

I concur 100% with the this

I concur 100% with the this response, in particular your last paragraph re. DEW.

For the last 2 years or more, we have conclusive, hard, favorably peer-reviewed scientific data which points to thermitic materials being responsible for the destruction of not only all 3 skyscrapers, but also *all* of the other damage/evidence/phenomena at Ground Zero.

Having this evidence and proof, on multiple levels, of thermitic materials being the cause, it seems very strange, if not suspicious, that some folk are touting the DEW option, when it remains a far-fetched concept (with wacky "sci-fi" connotations in the minds of the mainstream), with no proof and no hard evidence.

It appears that the DEW myth has been deliberately injected into the dialog, perhaps to promote rifts and squabbling?

Great experiment!

Was the temperature of the heating mantle measured with an infrared thermometer to determine the exact ignition temperature of the nanothermite?

I bring this up because at the completion of the gelation phase, you cut to another scene where it looks like much of the solvent has (presumably safely) been evaporated.

If this variant of nanothermite ignites at relatively low temperatures, like around 150 C or so, then attempting to dry it via heat might not be all that practical. But if it ignites, as expected, above 400 C, then that's good, because under repeated and similar conditions, it will likely remain stable against a typical solvent evaporation process.

Excellent job!

Experiment Please

I would like to see the effect of different thicknesses applied to corrugated floor pans loaded with 4" lightweight concrete. Could it break the pans up and pulverize the concrete at the same time?

This huge surface area would have been readily accessible during any asbestos abatement or SFRM retrofit. It could have been applied very thickly as the SFRM finish would hide it completely. The sprayed application tools might have been similar.

Thank you for an excellent video Kevin.


Thank you!


Thanks for this work Kevin. Glad you are in one piece!

I esp liked the suggested dust used by debunkers.