DOJ Responds to Grand Jury Petition

On Monday November 26, 2018, the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, a nonprofit public interest organization, announced its receipt of a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York reflecting the initiation of 9/11 related grand jury proceedings requested by the Lawyers’ Committee. The U.S. Attorney’s letter is in response to the Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10, 2018 Petition and July 30, 2018 Amended Petition demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of so-far-unprosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7).

Full Press Release Here

MASSIVE Breakthrough In 9/11 Investigation! - Must WATCH

MASSIVE Breakthrough In 9/11 Investigation! - Must WATCH (with Richard Gage & Barbara Honegger)

Additional, albeit obvious, reason for optimism

We may end up with a synergy between the LC's Grand Jury case and the eventuation of the FISA declass (if this latter happens). If Robert Mueller, John Brennan, James Clapper, Clinton Foundation and numerous others are shown to be even half as corrupt as people such as Dan Bongino believe, the events of 9/11 as an "inside" (plus some other countries') job will become easier for people to wrap their minds around.

It is riveting to see Hulsey's UAF study, the LC Grand Jury case, and possibly the Deep State FISA-related misdeeds developing into a confluence that may expose high-level international crimes.

As a strong supporter of the

As a strong supporter of the 1st Amendment, I am cool with my comment above being down-voted.

What I am wondering is, WHY?

No comment is perfect. I can see faults in my own comment even as I look at it now.

Is there no room for speculation?

Certainly, the FISA declass is something I am uncertain of--both what the documents will contain as well as whether the material will be declassified.

A person who lacks an open mind would be unlikely to have gotten into 9/11 Truth to begin with. My mind is open to the possibility (likelihood) that the crimes of 9/11 continue from then up to the very present. Mueller, I believe, was a criminal then, and now. Same, I believe, for Brennan. The list goes on, sometimes lineally, sometimes literally.

Certainly it is conceivable that a confluence of the awareness of the various international crimes will occur, and a synergy will occur.

LC nanothermite evidence -- compare with known materials

For people with little chemistry background, it can be helpful to compare an image of an acknowledged nanothermitic material with the material in the Harrit et al paper.

For example, here is a patented nano-laminate based ignitor:

(Click on top image below "Images (3)".)

Note that 202 and 206 appear to be intermixed grains of iron oxide (Fe2O3) and elemental aluminum (Al). (Scroll down on left side of page to "Brief Description of the Drawings: fig. 2.") This bears a striking similarity to the upper layer of the Harrit et al material. The main difference between the two is that the patented material is grains mixed with grains, whereas the Harrit material is (largely) iron oxide grains interspersed among a (mostly) aluminum matrix.

While there may be significant differences between the basal layers of the comparative materials, the active aluminothermic composition of the upper layers is remarkable.

If people (the public, grand jury, etc) can see such a comparison, it can help strengthen the evidence.

I mention this because people often become confused, since nanothermite is typically thought of as an explosive powder rather than a laminate or sol-gel.

The salient point here is not whether the Harrit material was in fact residue from ignitors, but rather the importance of absolute clarity in showing the similarity of the Harrit nanothermite with a known structure.


Satyakaama, would it be fair to say that the Harrit chips are like bits of the leftover fuses, used to ignite something more powerful?

Magnesium strip in a pile of thermite?


That is well put.

The ignitor theory for the Harrit material is what I consider most likely.

The main point above is that, if a known, verified image (or better, the material itself) could be obtained of a similar nano-laminate structure, the proof would become even more undeniable.

The image I linked to is one I Googled. It is used as an example only. One would want something more certainly known.


Whether you mean joules per unit time (watts) or joules per unit mass (energy density) "modern" thermite reactions stack up very well next to high explosives. I cant think of a reason to use thermite(s) as initiatiors. That's a long solved problem.

"Normal background Fe Sphere dust content (Mean of Composition %) is 0.04% the wtc dust has a 5.87% mean composition of Iron Spheres."

Anyone have a citation for the Al2O3 WTC dust content?


It's assumed that HE was also involved. But again, blasting caps work. You dont need thermite as a "match".

One reason

for a thermitic ignitor is, perhaps, to avoid leaving more obvious residue of a magnesium strip?

But you do have a point with the large amount of residue remaining. (That would indicate a lot of fuse material to begin with, and that has confused me at times.)

Do you have a theory for how the Harrit material was used?

I have generally considered the ignitor theory most probable, since such ignitors do exist, and are mentioned in the latter part of the Harrit paper. Also, because of the structural similarity of the upper layer of the Harrit stuff with other known materials.


What does Mg have to do with anything related to this?

The point was that one possible reason

for using thermite ignitors would be *not* to leave residue of Mg.

Other potential reasons for using thermitic ignitors are safety and the ease, or difficulty, of ignition.

If the Harrit material is not from ignitors, I'm okay with that. My mind is open.

I don't claim to know--for certain--how the Harrit material was used.

I have read the Harrit paper.

On first try, however, I couldn't access all of what you just linked to. I will try again.


What are you talking about Mg for? Nothing about the proposed materials has anything to do with Mg. Did you read the relevant papers? It soulds like you are talking about conventional thermite, but even that wouldnt make sense in this "Mg" CD context. There is no reason to use Mg for ignition, just like there is no reason to use advanced thermite mixtures for ignition of conventional HE.

I posted the link about elemental Fe dust content for a reason, you dont make ~5% via ignitors.

You are being too vague to even be wrong.

From the rules: "Post useful (sourced) information and commentary".